In January 2014, plaintiff Keri Sullivan, 39, a bakery/deli manager at a Save Mart in Daly City, went out on pregnancy leave, during which she learned that she had Lupus, an autoimmune disorder, which complicated her pregnancy. She also developed postpartum depression. As a result, Sullivan phoned her store manager to request extensions on her pregnancy leave. When a Save Mart’s employee’s approved medical leave had expired, and the employee had not provided medical documentation to support an extension of his/her leave, Save Mart employs “72 hour letters,” which provides an employee three days to respond, after which they may be terminated due to job abandonment. After Sullivan’s last approved leave of absence expired on Oct.1, 2014, she did not provide updated medical certification to Save Mart’s leave vendor, FMLASource, as she had previously done during the course of her leave. As a result, Save Mart sent a 72 hour letter to Sullivan in early November 2014. However, Sullivan had not updated her address of record with Save Mart, so the letter was returned to Save Mart as undeliverable on Nov. 26, 2014. Save Mart then sent a termination letter to the same address claiming “job abandonment.” Two weeks later, Sullivan called her store manager and allegedly learned that she had been fired. Thus, Sullivan claimed that she was wrongfully terminated form her position on Nov. 26, 2014. Sullivan sued Save Mart Supermarkets (doing business as FoodMaxx) and Lucky Supermarkets. Sullivan alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted pregnancy discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The parties ultimately stipulated that Save Mart was Sullivan’s employer and that Lucky Supermarkets and Save Mart Supermarkets were the same entity. Sullivan claimed that when her pregnancy leave expired, she phoned her store manager and provided the necessary medical documentation to FMLASource in order to get an extension. She alleged that when her last approved leave of absence was getting close to expire, she made contact with her store manager and told the manager that her medical provider was having trouble getting the necessary medical certifications to FMLASource and that she needed a little more leave time. The store manager then gave human resources Sullivan’s phone number, informed H.R. about the trouble Sullivan’s medical provider was having, and informed H.R. that Sullivan needed a little more leave time. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that despite Sullivan being in contact with the store manager, Save Mart sent a 72 hour letter to Sullivan in early November 2014, after Sullivan’s last approved leave of absence had expired and FMLASource had not received Sullivan’s updated medical certification. Counsel also contended that since Food Mart did not have Sullivan’s updated address, the letter was returned as undeliverable, but despite being on notice that the letter was not delivered, Save Mart sent a termination letter to the same address claiming “job abandonment.” Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Save Mart did not attempt to call or email Sullivan and that Sullivan did not even learn that she had been fired until two weeks later, on Dec. 8, 2014, when she called her store manager to inform the manager that her physicians had submitted documentation supporting extension of her medical leave through Feb. 1, 2015. Sullivan claimed that when her manager informed her that she had been terminated, she immediately called the H.R. manager for her store and tried to get her job back, but that the H.R. manager would not help her and told her that she simply could reapply for a job once she was released to work because she remained eligible for rehire. She also claimed that shortly thereafter, she went to her union to file a grievance, but the grievance never went anywhere. Thus, Sullivan alleged that Save Mart failed to reasonably accommodate her by returning her to her former position as a bakery/deli manager even though the position remained open for months after her termination. She also alleged that Save Mart failed to engage in any interactive process with her, such as continuing her leave, and that Save Mart terminated her employment because of her pregnancy and her medical condition. Defense counsel argued that Sullivan failed to update her address or provide medical certifications to FMLASource, failed to advance her union grievance, and ultimately abandoned her job. Defense counsel contended that Sullivan sometimes phoned her manager and sometimes provided the necessary medical documentation to FMLASource. Counsel argued that when it was learned that Sullivan had not updated her address, not requested an extension of her leave, and not submitted medical documentation necessary to extend her leave, Save Mart’s leave manager assumed Sullivan did not want her job and had moved on with life. Thus, defense counsel argued that Sullivan shared responsibility for the breakdown in communication that resulted in her discharge by failing to update the company with her new address and failing to provide timely medical certification of her need for continued medical leave. Counsel also argued that this resulted in the mistaken conclusion that Sullivan had abandoned her job. The human resources manager testified that she would have taken steps to bring Sullivan back to work had Sullivan said anything about losing her job when Sullivan contacted her. The H.R. manger also testified she was 100 percent certain Sullivan never said anything about wanting her job back and only requested her final paycheck be sent to her updated address. In addition, defense counsel acknowledged that Sullivan went to her union and filed a grievance that ultimately went nowhere. However, counsel argued that neither Sullivan nor the union advanced the grievance. Defense counsel introduced evidence that Sullivan did not inform the union, as she had been asked to do by her union representative, that she wished to pursue a grievance, even though doing so could have resulted in reinstatement. Counsel also contended that Save Mart and Sullivan’s union representative both maintained that they were waiting on Sullivan to inform her union representative that she was ready to return to work before scheduling her grievance for a hearing, but that Sullivan never did so. Thus, defense counsel argued that Sullivan caused the breakdown in the interactive process and discussions about reasonable accommodation., Sullivan worked for Save Mart for nearly 15 years. Approximately two months before trial, Save Mart offered Sullivan unconditional reinstatement and calculated her back pay at $87,000. However, Sullivan did not accept the reinstatement offer and did not deposit the check. At trial, Sullivan testified that she felt the offer was deceptive and that Save Mart should be held to account. She also asserted that she was financially ruined by her termination, causing her credit to be ruined and her to be evicted from her apartment. She claimed that as a result, she suffered from emotional distress. However, Sullivan claimed that after her termination, she was unable to afford counseling or treatment. The plaintiff’s psychological expert testified that Sullivan’s termination aggravated other underlying emotional issues and that Sullivan will need three years of psychological counseling. Thus, Sullivan sought recovery for her past and future wage loss, and past and future emotional distress. (Judge Steven Dylina struck Sullivan’s claim for punitive damages at the close of Sullivan’s case in chief.)