In November 2014, plaintiff Cheryl McElwain, 61, as a nurse manager in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Kaiser Permanente Orange County – Irvine Medical Center, was terminated from her position. McElwain was previously hired by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as a part-time staff nurse in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in 2008. She was then promoted to a management position in 2010 and worked as a nurse manager on the night shift for 2.5 years until 2012, when she requested to work on the day shift as an accommodation for an alleged medical condition. Instead of being assigned to the day shift, Kaiser placed McElwain on a forced medical leave of absence and required her to apply for vacant positions within Kaiser. For two years, McElwain applied for many jobs within Kaiser while on medical leave of absence, but Kaiser rejected McElwain from all of the comparable positions to which she applied. Kaiser ultimately placed McElwain in an ambulatory nurse manager day shift position. However, a couple months into her training, in early 2014, McElwain was removed from her new position after receiving two negative performance evaluations. Kaiser then terminated McElwain in November 2014. McElwain sued Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Southern California Permanente Medical Group Inc., and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. McElwain alleged that the defendants failed to properly accommodate her disability and wrongfully terminated her. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. was ultimately dismissed from the matter. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that McElwain had her stomach completely removed in 2003 due to severe reflux and that McElwain experienced an exacerbation of her reflux, including one severe aspiration incident that led to a hospitalization and aspiration pneumonia in 2012. Counsel contended that as a result, McElwain’s doctor, a Kaiser internal medicine physician, gave McElwain a restriction to work the day shift only, but noted that McElwain could still work full-time. Counsel further contended that when McElwain requested to work the day shift as an accommodation for her medical condition, McElwain’s immediate supervisor informed her that she would be able to accommodate McElwain’s day shift request. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that instead of accommodating McElwain’s day shift request, Kaiser placed McElwain on a forced medical leave of absence and required her to apply for vacant positions within Kaiser. Counsel contended that McElwain was told by the Kaiser Human Resources Department that as long as she met the minimum qualifications for a comparable opening, she would be placed in a position. However, counsel argued that for two years, McElwain applied for many jobs within Kaiser while on medical leave of absence, but that Kaiser rejected McElwain from all of the comparable positions to which she applied, despite the fact that McElwain met the documented minimum qualifications. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that Kaiser’s policy prohibits rejecting a preferred candidate, such as McElwain, for lacking preferred qualifications, as opposed to minimum qualifications, for comparable positions. In addition, counsel argued that a year before McElwain’s removal from her position, Kaiser’s chief administrative officer, Karen Tejcka, told human resources that placing McElwain in a position for which she does not meet the minimum qualifications would require that she be managed out. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that as a result, Kaiser placed McElwain on the day shift as an ambulatory nurse manager, which was a position that Kaiser had previously determined that McElwain did not meet the minimum qualifications. Counsel contended that as a result, a couple months into her training, McElwain was removed from the position after receiving two negative performance evaluations and terminated. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Kaiser failed to find proper accommodations for McElwain’s medical condition and ultimately placed her in a position so that she could be “managed out,” thereby wrongfully terminating her. Defense counsel argued that McElwain did not have a disability, so there was no medical necessity for the day shift accommodation. Counsel contended that regardless of McElwain not having a disability, Kaiser attempted to accommodate McElwain, but that she did not meet the minimum qualifications. Kaiser’s hiring managers testified that McElwain did not meet the minimum qualifications for the positions there were vacant during the day shift. Kaiser’s hiring managers testified that McElwain did not have the preferred qualifications or meet the minimum qualifications for the open positions during the day shift. They claimed that McElwain was ultimately being trained for a new position, but that she had to be terminated after receiving two negative performance evaluations., Plaintiff’s counsel contended that McElwain has been the sole breadwinner for her family since 2007. However, counsel argued that although McElwain secured a better paying job six weeks after her termination, it was not comparable to her prior position because it requires a 100-mile roundtrip commute. Counsel further argued that the time spent commuting to and from work is time away from McElwain’s husband, who has early Alzheimer’s. Thus, McElwain sought recovery of past loss of earnings prior to finding a new job and future medical expenses as a result of the time she has to be away from her husband due to her new commute. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future emotional pain and suffering, and recovery of punitive damages.