On Nov. 4, 2014, plaintiff Brianne Lannoo Rigoli, 24, a white load planner for C.R. England Inc., was terminated from her position. Rigoli was hired by C.R. England in August 2012. During the course of her employment, Rigoli performed her job duties without difficulty, save for a couple of job counseling sessions. In early 2013, Rigoli became pregnant with her second child. Rigoli’s Hispanic supervisor, Lorena Torres, understood that Rigoli was having financial difficulty and organized a baby shower for her at the office with invitations, gifts and a cake. Rigoli then took maternity leave and returned to work in February 2014. Rigoli claimed that while her Torres had previously been outgoing, friendly and easy to work for, Torres’ demeanor and conduct changed when she returned from her leave. Rigoli claimed that she observed Torres favor Hispanic employees and that Torres forced her to work long hours without compensation for the extra work. She also claimed that Torres did not allow her to take meal and rest breaks, even though she was a salaried employee. As a result, during the first part of 2014, Rigoli was allegedly seen for work stress, and was diagnosed with anxiety, depression and postpartum depression. Rigoli eventually complained to Torres’ boss, who Rigoli claimed generally ignored the complaints. Finally, she contacted human resources to complain and was told the complaints would be investigated. During that time, Rigoli emailed Torres to tell her that she needed to stay home to take care of her son and daughter because her son came down with Scarlet Fever, which she explained was “highly contagious.” A few days later, Rigoli informed Torres that she too had “caught their illness.” Pursuant to company policy, Torres instructed Rigoli to not return to work without a doctor’s release, as she “could not place the staff at risk.” Rigoli responded that she would comply. However, Rigoli and several co-workers were involved in a private weight loss contest, and on Oct. 30, 2014, Rigoli came to work with her daughter to weigh in, which, by most accounts, took place in C.R. England’s parking lot. Torres learned that Rigoli had returned to work without a doctor’s release, so she contacted human resources for direction. Pursuant to human resource’s instruction, Torres obtained witness statements confirming that Rigoli had violated her direct orders and company policy. As a result, before Rigoli returned to work the following week with a doctor’s note, C.R. England made the decision to terminate her. Rigoli sued C.R. England Inc., Torres and a subsidiary of C.R. England, England Global Logistics USA Inc. Rigoli claimed she was retaliated against for complaining about racial discrimination and wage and hour violations. She also alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Torres and England Global Logistics were ultimately dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter continued against C.R. England only. Rigoli testified that returned from leave, she noticed that Torres’ demeanor and conduct had changed. She claimed that she observed Torres speak Spanish to other Hispanic employees in the workplace; take Hispanic employees to lunch; favor Hispanic employees with better, unchanging schedules; and discharge non-Hispanic drivers and hire Hispanic drivers in their place. She also claimed that Torres allowed Hispanic employees to leave early, decorate their cubicles and bring their children to work. Rigoli claimed that when she returned from her leave, Torres changed her schedule, did not allow her to take meal and rest breaks, and forced her to work long hours without compensation for the extra work. She alleged that as a result of her treatment, she was seen for work stress during the first part of 2014 and was ultimately diagnosed with anxiety, depression and postpartum depression. Rigoli claimed that when the problems continued, and all of the non-Hispanic employees noticed the issues, she complained to Torres’ boss, who generally ignored the complaints, and then human resources, which told her that the complaints would be investigated. However, she noted that was terminated approximately one week later. Rigoli’s counsel contended that Rigoli’s call to human resources on Oct. 23, 2014, where she voiced her complaints, and that Rigoli’s complaints in general generated the termination. Counsel also contended that the persons who fired Rigoli knew about Rigoli’s complaints. According to plaintiff’s counsel, Torres and the director of operations denied any role in the termination decision, but were contradicted by their own testimony and that of one decision maker in human resources, and that the decision makers refused to stand by their decision to fire Rigoli. Counsel also noted that it was undisputed that Rigoli was a good employee at the time of her termination and that no one in the history of C.R. England had ever fired for coming to work sick. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the timing of Rigoli’s termination raised a legal inference of retaliatory intent, as Rigoli was on her vacation time, not company time, and did not enter the office. Thus, counsel argued there was no evidence of Rigoli placing any employee in harm’s way or exposing them to illness, so C.R. England had defamed Rigoli when Torres published statements that Rigoli had “contaminated the staff” and “placed the staff in harm’s way,” despite the fact that Rigoli admitted that she told her supervisor she had caught a “highly contagious” disease. However, defense counsel noted that although Rigoli initially denied providing any false information, Rigoli eventually admitted over the course of litigation that her comments to Torres were not true, in that she never had Scarlet Fever. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that, nevertheless, there was no progressive discipline and much more serious violations of policy did not result in termination. In addition, counsel argued that there was no investigation into Rigoli’s concerns of racial favoritism, not getting paid for all hours worked, and missing breaks. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that C.R. England did not follow its written anti-discrimination policies nor follow its own written personnel policies. After Rigoli closed her case, defense counsel moved for nonsuit, but the motion was denied in its entirety. Defense counsel contended, and produced supporting evidence from C.R. England, that Rigoli actually made her complaints to human resources in July 2014, not October 2014, so there was no proof of retaliation as a result of Rigoli’s complaints to human resources. Defense counsel also denied each of Rigoli’s claims and denied there was any racial favoritism or wage and hour violations, which was the substance of Rigoli’s underlying workplace complaints. In addition, counsel argued that Rigoli should not be allowed to lie to her employer, have her employer believe the lie, make statements based on the lie, then be subject to defamation., Rigoli claimed that after she was terminated from C.R. England, she could only obtain employment as a part-time waitress. Thus, she sought recovery of past and future lost wages. The plaintiff’s psychological expert opined that Rigoli suffered an adjustment disorder with depressed mood as a result of the termination. He also opined that Rigoli would need future counseling sessions. During closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Rigoli $2,783,471 in total damages, including $516,595 in economic damages for Rigoli’s past and future lost wages, and $2,266,876 in past and future non-economic damages for Rigoli’s emotional distress as a result of the termination and alleged defamation. Counsel also asked the jury to award punitive damages against C.R. England. Defense counsel disputed Rigoli’s lost wages claim. Counsel noted that Rigoli admitted in her deposition that she did not want to return to the trucking industry. Counsel also noted that Rigoli’s salary at C.R. England was $38,000 a year, but that after her termination, Rigoli obtained employment as a part-time waitress, where she made an hourly wage that sometimes exceeded her hourly wage at C.R. England, depending on her hours worked and tips earned. Defense counsel also disputed Rigoli’s emotional distress claim, noting that Rigoli did not undergo any treatment in the years following her termination. The defense’s psychology expert opined that Rigoli’s emotional distress was what anyone would experience after being terminated and that it did not rise to the level of a diagnosable psychological condition. He also opined that Rigoli’s objective psychological test results did not indicate severe emotional distress.