On March 1, 2013, plaintiff John Quemada, 52, an assistant construction manager for Cordoba Corp., was demoted to an entry-level position and required to clean a construction site. He ultimately suffered a serious work-related injury to his back, resulting in disabilities. A year later, an impartial workers’ compensation doctor selected by Cordoba determined that Quemada had suffered a 24 percent permanent disability, dictating permanent work restrictions that primarily impacted Quemada’s ability to sit for prolonged periods of time. However, Quemada claimed that was told that no accommodations were available and that he was not going to be allowed back to work because of his disabilities. He claimed he attempted to call the director of human resources back, but she never returned his messages. Quemada sued Cordoba Corp., alleging that the company’s actions constituted wrongful termination in violation of public policy. He also alleged that the company’s actions constituted a failure to engage in the interactive process, a failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, age discrimination and a failure to prevent discrimination, all in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Quemada claimed that by 2008, he was working for Cordoba’s Long Beach Community College Bond Management Team, which was responsible for administering and overseeing the Long Beach Community College Modernization Program, but that he was falsely accused of chronic poor performance in March 2013, causing him to be abruptly demoted to an entry-level position. He alleged that he was actually demoted so that a new 30-year-old employee, who was willing to take less pay, could be promoted into his job. Quemada claimed that as a result of the demotion, he was required to clean a construction site, which took several weeks to accomplish and caused his back . Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Quemada’s demotion was not only a violation of Cordoba’s own policy, which prohibited employees from engaging in manual labor, it also was a violation of the terms of Cordoba’s contract with the Long Beach Community College District. Counsel also noted that, after Quemada’s injury, Quemada filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was the first workers’ compensation claim brought against Cordoba in its long history. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that after sustaining back , Quemada required reasonable accommodations so that he could continue doing his job, but that the company neither engaged Quemada in the interactive process nor offered Quemada any accommodations other than a leave of absence. Counsel also argued that Cordoba’s failure to accommodate Quemada aggravated Quemada’s disabilities, resulting in multiple leaves of absence. During his last absence, Quemada was sent an email from Cordoba’s human resources director stating that Quemada would not be allowed back to work unless he was able to perform “100 percent” of his job duties. Consequently, Quemada’s doctors extended his leave of absence. After the workers’ compensation finding, Cordoba admitted that it could have accommodated Quemada’s permanent restrictions without any issues whatsoever. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Quemada was never engaged in the interactive process and no accommodations were ever offered to him. Counsel contended that, instead, the human resources director left Quemada a voice message informing him that no accommodations were available and that Quemada was not going to be allowed back to work because of his disabilities. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the claims notes from Cordoba’s workers’ compensation carrier revealed that the human resources director had reported that Quemada had suffered an injury after being asked to clean a construction site and showed that Cordoba accepted responsibility for Quemada’s and never challenged the validity of how he got hurt. Plaintiff’s counsel also noted that the human resources director claimed that she had learned of Quemada’s alleged decision not to return to Cordoba from the workers’ compensation claims adjuster. However, counsel contended that the human resources director was repeatedly impeached by both her own deposition testimony and the testimony of various other witnesses, allegedly demonstrating that Quemada was never engaged in the interactive process and never offered any accommodations for his disabilities. The workers’ compensation adjuster also testified to having never spoken to Quemada and that her claims notes documenting her communications with Cordoba showed that the human resources director had said that Quemada was going to be terminated because of his permanent disabilities. Defense counsel contended that the workers’ compensation adjuster was later impeached, admitting that the human resources director had never actually told her that Quemada was going to be terminated. The insurance adjuster explained that her notes were a summary of the conversation that she had with the human resources director and that she assumed that Cordoba would terminate the employee because the human resources director was uncertain of Cordoba’s ability to accommodate Quemada’s disabilities. Defense counsel argued that during the entire time that Quemada was employed by Cordoba, Quemada received repeated written warnings that his computer skill and writing needed to improve and that Quemada did not make any improvements. Counsel also argued that, in 2013, it was necessary to make changes to job positions at the project, so Quemada was demoted. Defense counsel contended that after the demotion, Quemada’s work continued to decline, so Quemada was placed on a performance improvement plan and told that if his performance did not improve, he would be terminated. Defense counsel argued that just 30 days before his performance was to be reviewed, Quemada stated that he was injured on the job. The injury was handled through workers’ compensation. Counsel contended that, thereafter, Quemada only returned to work for short periods for more than a year and that when he did return to work, Cordoba allowed him to sit and stand as necessary to comply with his doctor’s restriction. Counsel also contended that Quemada would take himself out of work and continually provide doctor’s notes placing him out of work, but that Cordoba complied with all Quemada’s doctor’s notes. Defense counsel argued that, ultimately, Cordoba was told by the workers’ compensation adjuster that Quemada did not want to return to work and that as a result, Cordoba’s human resources person called Quemada to confirm that claim. Counsel contended that as a result, the human resources director left a voice message stating the purpose of the call and asking Quemada to call her back, but she claimed she never received a call back from Quemada. Further, defense counsel noted that Quemada was unable to produce his phone records at trial to demonstrate a call was made to the human resources director. In addition, defense counsel argued that Quemada also did not try to contact anyone else at Cordoba and that Quemada was actually looking for employment at the time of the events., Quemada was recruited and hired by Cordoba in April 2007. He claimed that from the date of his hire until early 2013, he received nothing but positive performance reviews as well as annual merit-based pay raises, which were only afforded to Cordoba’s highest performing employees. By 2013, Quemada was earning just under $92,000 annually. However, after he was terminated, Quemada claimed he was unable to find employment for approximately two full years, resulting in a loss of earnings of nearly $185,000. Quemada claimed he suffers from emotional distress stemming from his termination and inability to find work for two years. Quemada sought recovery of $185,000 in past lost earnings, an unspecified amount for future loss of earnings, and an unspecified amount of noneconomic damages for his past and future emotional distress. He also sought recovery of punitive damages for the alleged wrongful conduct of Cordoba and its managing agents. Defense counsel noted that Quemada never sought counseling and that Quemada was on his wife’s insurance, so he could have received counseling.