In January 2001, plaintiff Jose Prado, a Nicaraguan who worked as a part-time package handler for FedEx Express, went out on disability after suffering a stroke. He eventually returned to work, but later complained that he was working beyond his restrictions. Eventually, Prado filled out the paperwork and FedEx Express obtained information from Prado’s treating physician, who described Prado’s physical limitations. Due to alleged delays in the accommodation process, Prado filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Jan. 13, 2009. In June 2009, Prado suffered a second stroke. He later attempted to return to work with medical restrictions that severely limited the type of work he could perform. When Prado was unable to find a position at Federal Express that fit within his medical limitations, he was terminated on April 14, 2010. He subsequently filed a second EEOC complaint on May 20, 2010. Prado sued Federal Express Corp., doing business as FedEx Express, on July 26, 2012. Prado claimed that after he returned to work after his first stroke, he complained that Federal Express was working him beyond his restrictions. He claimed that due to delays in the accommodation process, he filed an EEOC complaint on Jan. 13, 2009, alleging disability discrimination, retaliation for seeking an accommodation, disability harassment, and national origin discrimination and harassment. Prado claimed that following his second stroke, he again sought to return to work with medical restrictions that severely limited the type of work he could perform. His treating physician reported to Federal Express that Prado had reached maximum medical improvement, but that Prado could frequently lift/carry 10 pounds and only occasionally lift/carry 20 pounds with his right hand only. The physician also reported that Prado could push/pull 20 pounds with his right hand only and could not use his left extremities. In addition, the physician reported that Prado could stand/walk for two hours. Based on these restricts, Prado attempted to return to work. However, he claimed that he was not provided a suitable position that fit within his medical limitations. Thus, Prado alleged that Federal Express wrongfully terminated him after he sought to return to work, with restrictions, following his second stroke. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Federal Express failed to provide Prado reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. Counsel also argued that Federal Express’ actions constituted disability discrimination in violation of the ADA and FEHA, national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII and FEHA, and discrimination in violation of public policy. In addition, counsel argued that Federal Express failed to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA and failed to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA. Defense counsel contended that after the first stroke, Prado returned to work without any restrictions, but years later, Prado complained that he was working beyond his restrictions. Counsel contended that as a result, Federal Express invited Prado to complete paperwork related to its accommodation process, but that Prado refused to do so and insisted he needed no accommodation. Counsel further contended that once Prado filled out the paperwork, Federal Express was able to obtain information from Prado’s treating physician regarding Prado’s physical limitations. Thus, counsel argued that any alleged delay in the accommodation process was due to Prado’s initial refusal to complete the related paperwork. Defense counsel noted that the handler job at Federal Express is a physically-demanding job. Counsel explained that handlers working in a sort operation lasting 3.5 to four hours, such as the one where Prado worked, had to perform four essential job functions/duties: loading and unloading aircraft containers, trailers, and trucks; separating packages and documents by service type and destination; gathering unclaimed packages at the end of the sort conveyor belt and returning them to the front of the belt; and scanning and sorting boxes and documents. In performing these essential functions, handlers had to have the ability to lift and maneuver packages up to 75 pounds, unassisted, and packages up to 150 pounds with appropriate equipment or assistance. Defense counsel contended that because Prado was released to return to work after his second stroke, had restrictions and limitations that were permanent, and had reached maximum medical improvement, Federal Express placed Prado on a 90-day personal leave of absence to find an open job for which he was qualified. Counsel contended that during Prado’s 90-day personal leave, Federal Express sent Prado weekly bulletins that listed all open jobs at Federal Express and gave Prado placement preference for any lateral or lower level position that he was qualified to perform, with or without an accommodation. However, counsel noted that Prado applied for only one open position, that of a handler. Defense counsel contended that as a result, Federal Express denied Prado’s application because there was no accommodation with which Prado could perform all the essential functions of the handler position. In addition, defense counsel contended that Prado did not apply for, or express interest in, any other job and that Prado admitted that he was not qualified for any of the open positions in the geographic area in which he wished to work. Thus, counsel contended that after Prado exhausted his 90-day personal leave/job-search period and failed to obtain a position, Federal Express terminated Prado’s employment. Defense counsel argued that Prado was not a qualified individual with a disability because Prado could not perform all of the essential functions of the handler position, with or without an accommodation. Counsel also argued that there was no evidence that anyone at Federal Express had any discriminatory animus toward Prado. Counsel argued that, instead, Prado’s restrictions were unworkable in the handler position and that Prado failed to identify any accommodation that would allow him to perform all of the essential functions of the handler position. Thus, defense counsel argued that Prado did not reasonably try to secure another job, leaving Federal Express no option other than to terminate his employment. Defense counsel moved for summary judgment on Prado’s national origin claims, asserting that the claims were baseless. Judge Paul Grewal ultimately granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing Prado’s national origin claims., Prado claimed that he had worked as a part-time package handler at Federal Express since Dec. 17, 1997 and that his termination on April 14, 2010, caused him emotional distress. Thus, Prado sought recovery of $1,950,152, including $279,100 in back pay, $196,052 in front pay and $1,475,000 in emotional distress damages. He also sought recovery of punitive damages of up to nine times the $1,950,152 total amount he was seeking, or $17,551,368. Thus, Prado sought a total recovery of $19,501,520. Defense counsel noted that following his termination, Prado failed to obtain other employment and failed to pursue any counseling for his alleged emotional distress.