In January 2011, plaintiff Josephine Harper-Thornton, a black female in her late 30s and a Special Education Instructional Assistant II for the Poway Unified School District, was terminated from her position. The District could not reasonably accommodate the permanent work restrictions she received from a workers’ compensation injury. Prior to her termination, Harper-Thornton was classified as a permanent employee of the Poway Unified School District and worked as a one-on-one aide to severely disabled students. On Aug. 11, 2008, Harper-Thornton allegedly sustained soft-tissue knee and shoulder in a slip-and-fall incident while she was volunteering at a school within the district during summer vacation before the start of the new school year. She subsequently filed a worker’s compensation claim for her alleged . Harper-Thornton acknowledged that the district accommodated all her restrictions up until May 13, 2010. (During the 2008/2009 school year, she worked 12 full six-hour shifts out of 167 days, and for the 2009/2010 school year she only worked 71 full shifts out of 185 days.) However, after a job analysis was conducted on May 13, 2010, based on a workers’ compensation physician’s revised permanent work restrictions for Harper-Thornton that was issued in February 2010, the school district placed Harper-Thornton on paid administrative leave. As a result, Harper-Thornton filed a workers’ compensation claim for psychological distress due to being placed on administrative leave. In July 2010, Harper-Thornton’s workers’ compensation physician issued a supplemental report in which he stated that Harper-Thornton could return to work, but that her prior position of Instructional Assistant II for special education students was no longer suitable. Thus, the district determined that it could no longer accommodate Harper-Thornton, and her employment was terminated in January 2011. Harper-Thornton claimed she was discriminated against based on her disability and that she was subjected to harassment, which created a hostile work environment. Harper-Thornton sued the Poway Unified School District. She alleged the district’s actions constituted disability discrimination in violation of California Government Code § 12940 (a); a hostile work environment/harassment in violation of California Government Code § 12940 (j); failure to accommodate in violation of California Government Code § 12940 (m); failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of California Government Code § 12940 (n); and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Harper-Thornton claimed that after her August 2008 accident, her initial treating workers’ compensation physician, Dr. Bradley Chesler, believed she was capable of doing her job with restrictions that included not lifting more than five pounds with her left arm, and that she should not do any bending or twisting. However, she claimed that in February 2010, when another workers’ compensation physician, Dr. Jeffrey Bernicker, examined her, he determined that she had permanent work restrictions that “precluded [her] from very heavy lifting and from contact with combative/aggressive children.” In addition, he opined that Harper-Thornton could not return to her previous assignment without the risk of further injury. However, Harper-Thornton claimed that when her new treating workers’ compensation physician, Bernicker, requested a job analysis, the school district retaliated by placing her on administrative leave, before ultimately terminating her. The Poway Unified School District contended that it engaged in a very extensive good-faith interactive process and, after considering all available options, it determined that Harper-Thornton was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, even with accommodations. It claimed that it initially accommodated all of Harper-Thornton’s restrictions, but that the district became increasingly concerned that Harper-Thornton might injure either herself or a student if she continued to work even with restrictions. The school district alleged that as a result, Harper-Thornton was placed on paid administrative leave on May 13, 2010, while it determined whether it could reasonably accommodate her restrictions. However, the district claimed that based on the supplemental report issued by Bernicker, it determined that it could not accommodate Harper-Thornton and her employment was terminated in January 2011. Defense counsel contended that in July 2008, prior to the plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall, the district reassigned Harper-Thornton to another school within the district because the student that she had been assigned to no longer required an aide. However, counsel asserted that Harper-Thornton informed the district that she would not go to the new assignment because it did not suit her. Defense counsel contended that, thereafter, when the school year started on Aug, 20, 2008, 11 days after Harper-Thornton’s slip-and-fall accident, Harper-Thornton did not appear at work and did not call in to report her absence. Counsel also contended that at that time, Harper-Thornton began a pattern of leaving work early or failing to come in to work, which continued for the remainder of the school year and the following school year. Counsel further contended that Harper-Thornton left early to pick up special needs students from the school she had previously been assigned to and then took them to her home where she provided private after-school care for them. However, defense counsel noted that Harper-Thornton had to pick up the students for her private daycare no later than 2:20 p.m., but that her work assignment ended at 3:15 p.m. In addition, counsel contended that Harper-Thornton would not come to work, sometimes for months at a time, and she failed to comply with the district’s directives to provide a doctor’s note for her absences. Specifically, defense counsel noted that for a period of two weeks in February 2009, when Harper-Thornton should have been at work, the plaintiff went on vacation and claimed the time as sick leave. Defense counsel called the plaintiff’s original treating workers’ compensation physician, Chesler, who opined that Harper-Thornton was capable of doing her job with restrictions that included not lifting more than five pounds with her left arm and no bending and twisting. However, defense counsel contended that Harper-Thornton attempted to secure additional restrictions for the same injury, from her personal physician, which included a limit of working three hours per day only in the morning. Chesler testified that as a result of her request of additional restrictions, he declined to give Harper-Thornton further restrictions without a qualified medical evaluation, as he could find no objective manifestations of her complaints in April 2009. Defense counsel contended that due to Chesler’s denial to issue further restrictions, Harper-Thornton retained another workers’ compensation physician, Bernicker, with the help of her attorney in February 2010, and that the new physician issued additional permanent work restrictions. The district claimed that it began the process to determine whether it could accommodate Harper-Thornton based on her new work restrictions, and that a job analysis was conducted on May 13, 2010, based on Bernicker’s request. However, it claimed that it became increasingly concerned that Harper-Thornton might injure either herself or a student if she continued to work even with restrictions, and so she was placed on paid administrative leave on May 13, 2010, for the remainder of her contract, while it determined whether it could reasonably accommodate her restrictions. However, the district claimed that Harper-Thornton failed to attend the next four accommodation meetings that were scheduled, in that she either did not show up or that she notified the district by e-mail just before the meeting was to take place to say that she was not coming. In addition, defense counsel contended that Bernicker initially issued a supplemental report in which he stated that Harper-Thornton could “return to her usual and customary position without representing a significant risk of re-injury.” However, counsel contended that on July 27, 2010, Bernicker issued a revised report following the district’s request for clarification, in which the physician stated that “the job duties of the patient’s position as an Instructional Assistant II for special education students by definition mandates that she come in contact with potentially disruptive/aggressive children. Given that there is no way to protect the patient from the possibility of additional injury should she return to the original occupation which led to her injury in the first place, it is now my amended position that this position is not suitable for [Harper-Thornton] as currently constituted.” In addition, defense counsel noted that Harper-Thornton filed two separate claims with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing: the first one on March 5, 2009, and the second one on March 8, 2010. Both accused the Poway Unified School District of discriminating against her on the basis of her race and her disability, and of retaliating against her. However, defense counsel contended that Harper-Thornton failed to file suit against the district within one year of the first Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint. Counsel further contended that Harper-Thornton’s second Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint alleged the misconduct occurred between the dates of April 22, 2009, and May 26, 2009, but did not allege the discriminatory action was continuing. Thus, defense counsel argued that Harper-Thornton’s lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations because she failed to file a lawsuit within one year of filing her Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint. Counsel further argued that in an effort to cure this fatal flaw, Harper-Thornton filed a second Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint, which alleged the same continuing conduct and which Harper-Thornton acknowledged was based on the same continuing conduct. In addition, counsel argued that neither the claim of harassment nor the claim of failure to engage in the interactive process was included in Harper-Thornton’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaints., Harper-Thornton sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress. She also sought recovery of damages related to the alleged discrimination, hostile work environment and wrongful termination.