On June 11, 2014, plaintiff Charles Saccio, 64, a food and beverage director at Eladio’s Restaurant and Harbor View Inn, in Santa Barbara, met with the owner and operator of the restaurant and inn, Antonio Romasanta. Saccio claimed that during the meeting, Romasanta made age-related comments about him. As a result, Saccio complained to the Human Resources Department and to the general manager, Antonio Romasanta’s son, Mark Romasanta. However, Saccio claimed that despite his complaints, no investigation was ever done. On June 25, 2014, Saccio was terminated from his employment. Saccio sued Antonio Romasanta,Antonio Romasanta Trust, and Beach Restaurant Partners. Saccio alleged that the defendants subjected him to age discrimination, defamation, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, resulting in his wrongful termination. He also alleged that the defendants failed to prevent harassment and discrimination. The Antonio Romasanta Trust and Beach Restaurant Partners were ultimately dismissed from the case. Saccio claimed that he was hired as the food and beverage director at Eladio’s Restaurant and Harbor View Inn on Jan. 13, 2013, and that after one year of employment, his general manager, Mark Romasanta, gave him a favorable review, a bonus, and an $8,000 raise to $60,000. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Mark Romasanta even testified that he was satisfied with Saccio’s performance as of June 9, 2014. However, Saccio claimed that while Mark Romasanta was on vacation, Antonio Romasanta called him to a meeting on June 11, 2014 and asked, “How old are you?” “You’re no Spring Chicken!” “I’ve hired a young gal, about 30, who will be your assistant; you’re going to train her.” Saccio claimed that as a result, the next day, he reported Antonio Romasanta’s questions and comments to Eladio’s human resources director, Carla Silva, per human resources’ policies, expressing concern that he would be fired because of his age. However, he claimed that in violation of stated policy, there was no investigation of his complaint, despite Silva’s report to Mark Romasanta, whose directive was, “My father is focused on the business issues and I have no control of his decisions.” Plaintiff’s counsel contended that on June 25, 2014, less than two weeks after Saccio made his complaint, Antonio Romasanta fired Saccio based on unspecified performance deficiencies that were never documented, in violation of human resources’ policy, which stated that progressive discipline was first required, such as verbal warnings, written warnings, and suspension. Saccio claimed that at the termination meeting, Antonio Romasanta again said, “You’re no Spring Chicken,” which was confirmed by former H.R. Director Silva, who resigned shortly after Saccio was fired, but who was located and deposed before trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contented that rather than allow Saccio to resign, Antonio Romasanta defamed Saccio by directing that a termination letter be posted in Saccio’s personnel file, which stated that the termination was “based on poor performance…[and]…failure to perform the duties of the position and the standard required.” The letter also stated that Saccio’s “work performance and quality of work has not met our expectations,” and included claims of lack of competence. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that after Saccio was fired, Antonio Romasanta immediately replaced him with the 30-year-old female assistant. Counsel noted that, three months later, the new food and beverage director was accused by a subordinate of creating a hostile work environment. Plaintiff’s counsel further noted that, this time, the new H.R. Director for Eladio’s promptly investigated the claim, took statements from all parties, and issued a written warning to the female food and beverage director, complying with human resources’ policy. However, counsel contended that despite that event, as well as a detailed report of a cockroach infestation in Eladio’s kitchen, Antonio Romasanta gave the new female food and beverage director a raise to $60,000. Thus, Saccio claimed that he was terminated due to his age. Antonio Romasanta claimed that Saccio was terminated for legitimate performance reasons and denied making any age-related comments. He also claimed that Saccio was “primarily responsible” for the profitability of the restaurant and that Saccio was fired, in part, due to the loss of profits while Saccio was working as the food and beverage director. In response, plaintiff’s counsel noted that Mark Romasanta and others denied the claim that Saccio was “primarily responsible” for the profitability of the restaurant. Counsel further contended that trial testimony indicated that Eladio’s was profitable only one year since the 1990s., Saccio claimed that he suffers from a loss of earnings as a result of his termination and negative review in his personnel file. He also claimed that he suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incidents and sought counseling for the condition. Saccio had a single telephonic consult with regular doctor and was given a prescription for anti-anxiety medication. No further treatment or medication was received, and Saccio claimed no residual at the time of trial. Thus, Saccio sought recovery of $38,800 in past lost earnings and $55,000 in future lost earnings. He also sought recovery of an unspecified amount of non-economic damages for his past emotional pain and suffering.