On June 27, 2017, plaintiff Sherri Adams, 56, a Black woman and a training coordinator, became involved in a dispute with the human-resources director for her employer, Access Services, a quasi-governmental agency that provides transportation services to individuals with disabilities. Adams believed that the human-resources director, who is also Black, was engaging in discriminatory employment practices, including favoring Black individuals and disadvantaging others, including Hispanics and Asians. Adams believed that the director was making preferential hiring, promotion and pay decisions in favor of Blacks, often those with whom the director or the director’s husband had a preexisting relationship. Adams had raised concerns to the agency’s human-resources director and internally earlier in June 2017. The human-resources director denied there had been preferential treatment. In response to Adams’ complaint, the human-resources director approached Adams on June 27, 2017, and a dispute ensued. Witnesses confirmed that Adams either yelled or raised her voice at the director, including loudly telling the director to leave her alone or she would call the police. According to the director, Adams’ behavior was insubordinate, in violation of Access Services’ policies, and justified Adams’ immediate termination. However, Adams and two other Access Services employees lodged formal equal-employment-opportunity complaints in June 2017 and July 2017, alleging that the human-resources director engaged in harassing, discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct. In December 2017, about two months after Adams had been given a final warning, and two months after the human-resources director had left Access Services, Adams’ new supervisor alleged that Adams had a similar outburst during a meeting with her, during which Adams was allegedly inappropriate, unprofessional and threatening to the new supervisor. As a result, Access Services terminated Adams’ employment, claiming that Adams had engaged in a similar offensive outburst to another supervisor while on a final warning for essentially the same behavior. Adams sued Access Services, alleging that the defendant’s actions constituted whistleblower retaliation, retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and failure to prevent retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Although the case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Adams repeatedly sought mediation. Access Services initially agreed to mediate but then declined to do so, indicating that it would simply arbitrate instead. As a result, the matter proceeded to arbitration. Adams claimed that she was retaliated against after she reported the human-resources director’s favoritism. She alleged that after she filed the EEO complaints, Access Services retained an outside investigator who conducted a multi-month investigation into her complaints against the human-resources director, who departed Access Services soon after the investigation had concluded. Around the same time, Adams was placed on a final warning regarding her alleged outburst at the human-resources director. Adams claimed that the final warning and termination were retaliatory and pretextual and that the true reason for those actions was that she reported the human-resources director’s discriminatory behavior. According to Adams, the human-resources director was motivated by discriminatory intent and influenced an otherwise unbiased decision-maker to take an adverse employment action against her. Specifically, Adams claimed that the director pushed for her to be terminated in retaliation for the incident on June 27, 2017. Adams also claimed that the termination, itself, was retaliatory, but that even if it were not, the final warning was retaliatory because the decision-maker on her termination admitted that the final warning and the second event were both required to terminate. In addition, Adams claimed that even if the termination decision, itself, based on the second incident, was wholly legitimate and nonretaliatory, the termination was still unlawful because it was tainted by, and influenced by, the underlying retaliatory final warning. Defense counsel contended that Access Services appropriately hired an outside investigator to conducted a multi-month investigation into Adams’ complaints, but that the investigation did not substantiate the EEO allegations. Counsel also contended that the human-resources director departed Access Services soon after the investigation had concluded, so she did not influence the agency’s decision to place Adams on a final warning regarding her outburst. In addition, counsel contended that Adams was warned directly that any further behavior of a similar nature or similar policy violation would result in her immediate termination. Defense counsel further contended that although Adams was terminable for the outburst on June 27, 2017, Access Services gave Adams a second chance by giving her the final warning. Counsel argued that Adams twice violated basic workplace behavior rules and that those violations, alone, were why she was terminated. Defense counsel pointed out that the ultimate decision-maker on both the final warning and the termination was Access Services’ chief executive officer and that Adams admitted that Access Services’ CEO had always treated her well. The CEO testified that he could have terminated Adams over the final warning event, but that he did not because he liked her, valued her and wanted to give her another chance., Following her termination, Adams obtained other jobs, but she ultimately chose to change careers and leave the corporate workplace setting. She chose, instead, to work as a teacher. Adams claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the events, but she did not receive any psychological care or treatment. Her expert in forensic psychology diagnosed Adams with anxiety and depression but also acknowledged that Adams was currently doing well and largely in remission after she decided to change careers. Adams sought recovery of lost earnings, lost pension benefits, and damages for emotional pain and suffering.