In July 2018, plaintiff Mayra Alvarez, an executive assistant and scheduler for Jose Huizar, a council member for the city of Los Angeles, resigned from her position. Alvarez claimed that Huizar gave preferential treatment to another staffer with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair and that when she complained about it, she was retaliated against. She also claimed that she was demoted after she returned from maternity leave and that as a result of the retaliation against her, she was forced to resign. Alvarez sued her supervisor, Huizar, and her employer, the city of Los Angeles. Alvarez alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted workplace harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Labor Code. Following a meet-and-confer with the defendants, Alvarez voluntarily dismissed her causes of action for wrongful termination/constructive discharge and whistleblower retaliation for alleged violations of ethics rules and laws under the Labor Code. In addition, Huizar’s counsel moved for summary judgment based on Alvarez’s testimony that Huizar never made any anti-pregnancy comments. However, Huizar was dismissed while the motion was pending. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Alvarez was demoted in retaliation for taking maternity leave and taking disability leave prior to her pregnancy. She also claimed she was retaliated for making complaints about the alleged preferential treatment, and Huizar’s and his office’s alleged violations of state, local and federal law. The city’s counsel contended that Alvarez was promoted, not demoted, and that any decision to change Alvarez’s duties was based on the changed needs of the office., Alvarez claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the incidents. She subsequently sought counseling for her condition. Alvarez sought recovery for her emotional pain and suffering. The city’s counsel contended that Alvarez voluntarily resigned within weeks of returning from maternity leave, having already secured another job. Thus, counsel asserted that Alvarez suffered no damages.