On July 20, 2012, plaintiff Crystal Losorelli, 29, a correctional officer at the California Institution for Men (CIM), a prison in Chino, allegedly requested to be put on a light duty assignment as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Losorelli, who began her career as a correctional officer with the CDCR in October 2006, previously suffered a miscarriage while carrying out her duties as an officer at CIM in 2010. That same year, she became pregnant again and immediately sought, and was granted, accommodations while pregnant with her second baby. During her entire pregnancy, she was assigned to a light duty clerical job, out of uniform. After the birth of her second baby, Losorelli returned to her job as a correctional officer. On or around July 20, 2012, Losorelli learned that she was pregnant with her third baby. Her physician ordered her to immediately request a light duty assignment and other accommodations for her pregnancy. Her work restrictions included no inmate takedowns, no chemical agents, no gassing, no running, and no lifting/pushing/pulling/carrying more than 15 pounds. Since Losorelli’s uniform and equipment alone weighed over 15 pounds, and she was required her to carry chemical agents and firearms in some assignments, she requested to be assigned to light duty work as an accommodation. However, she claimed that the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation staff first told her that because she had been reclassified as a part-time “permanent intermittent correctional officer,” she was not entitled to pregnancy accommodations. Losorelli subsequently challenged the denial of her accommodations from July 2012 through Sept. 24, 2012, and was prevented from working during that time period. The warden, Brenda Cash, eventually directed that Losorelli be accommodated with a light duty assignment, out of uniform, in the visiting area of the prison. Losorelli was subsequently accommodated in October 2012 and then again when she was transferred to the mailroom at the California Institution for Women (CIW) for a one week period. On Nov. 7, 2012, Losorelli was transferred from the mailroom at CIW, back to CIM. However, upon arrival at CIM, Ronald Jones, a captain at the time, removed Losorelli from her accommodated position because it was allegedly “costing the institution money.” Thus, at five months pregnant, Losorelli was allegedly ordered to work in posts that required her to wear a uniform, carry her safety equipment and utility belt, carry and use oleoresin capsicum (a potent form of pepper spray), fire weapons, carry and pass out equipment that weighed over 25 pounds, and perform inmate takedowns. Having had a prior miscarriage while performing her regular duties, Losorelli had a panic attack and was ordered out on stress leave by the CDCR’s doctors. Over the next few months, Losorelli claimed that the CDCR refused to engage in the interactive process and refused to offer her a return to work with accommodations that met her doctor’s restrictions. Losorelli sued the state of California; the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation; the California Institution for Men; Warden Brenda Cash; Captain Ronald Jones; and the secretary for the CDCR, Jeffrey Beard. Losorelli alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted pregnancy discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to prevent discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. At the time of trial, the CDCR was the only remaining defendant. Losorelli claimed that she was denied a pregnancy accommodation to a light duty post out of uniform and that, meanwhile, the department had a policy allowing officers who were facing misconduct investigations to work in light duty assignments in the mailroom during the pendency of those investigations. She alleged that when she initially requested accommodation in July 2012, the CDCR staff told her that because she had been re-classified as a part-time “permanent intermittent correctional officer,” through no fault of her own, she was not entitled to pregnancy accommodations and that as a result, she was prevented from working while she challenged the denial from July 2012 through Sept. 24, 2012. She also alleged that when she was finally directed to be accommodated, Cash did it without ever engaging in any interactive process. In addition, Losorelli alleged that once she was transferred back to CIM on Nov. 7, 2012, Jones removed her accommodations because they were “costing the institution money” and ordered her, at five months pregnant, to work in posts that required her to wear a uniform and equipment, which alone weighed over 15 pounds, as well as carry and use a potent form of pepper spray, fire weapons, carry and pass out equipment that weighed over 25 pounds, and perform inmate takedowns. She claimed that as a result, she had a panic attack and was ordered out on stress leave by CDCR’s doctors and that over the next few months, the CDCR refused to engage in the interactive process and provide her with reasonable accommodations that met her doctor’s restrictions. Plaintiff’s counsel called Cash and some human resources staff to testify at trial, and they all admitted that there were plenty of light duty assignments at the prison available for Losorelli. Cash admitted that CIM had a policy of assigning officers to the mailroom while they were investigated for claims of domestic violence, or excessive force, but that the mailroom could not be given as an option to Losorelli because she had not engaged in any misconduct. The plaintiff’s human resources expert testified that the CDCR had not engaged in the interactive process, as required by accepted and standard practices, nor had the CDCR even followed its own policies and procedures in handling Losorelli’s accommodations request. Defense counsel contended that Losorelli did not request her accommodations in writing until September 2012 and that once the written request was received, the CDCR accommodated Losorelli by placing her in an out-of-uniform position, doing clerical work in September 2012 and October 2012. However, counsel contended that on Nov. 7, 2012, Jones noted that Losorelli’s accommodations were causing budget issues because Losorelli was being accommodated in a clerical position, for which there was no budget, and that as a result, Jones could only give Losorelli accommodations in a position for which there was a budget. Defense counsel maintained that the only budgeted positions available for Jones to assign Losorelli at that time were those that required her to wear a uniform and carry all of her safety equipment and that as a result, Jones issued orders that if Losorelli wanted to work, she would have to do so in uniform, staffing the entry gates at five entry points to the prison. Counsel asserted that the posts offered to Losorelli met her restrictions because they would only require her to open and close gates and check in visitors and staff, but that Losorelli simply did not like the accommodations offered to her. In addition, defense counsel denied that the CDCR discriminated against Losorelli by denying her light duty, while allowing other officers to work in the mailroom while they were under investigation for misconduct. Counsel asserted that the two issues were unrelated because Losorelli was a permanent intermittent employee, not a full-time officer., Losorelli claimed that shortly after her pregnancy accommodations were removed on Nov. 7, 2012, she had a panic attack and was ordered out on stress leave by CDCR’s doctors. The CDCR’s psychologist, who was called by plaintiff’s counsel as Losorelli’s treating physician, would have allegedly testified about Losorelli’s treatment, distress, and prognosis. She also would have testified about her ongoing treatment of Losorelli and the psychological damage done by CDCR’s alleged conduct. The CDCR’s doctors who treated Losorelli re-evaluated her on a monthly basis and repeatedly found that her psychiatric injury was so severe that she was unable to return to work. Through the date of trial on Jan. 30, 2017, Losorelli remained employed by CDCR, but not medically cleared to return to work.