On Jan. 22, 2009, plaintiff Alfred McKnight, a black, male motor coach operator for the city of Santa Monica, was terminated from his position. McKnight started as a probationary employee in November 2007. However, a superintendent in the city’s Big Blue Bus Department, Adolfo Crespo, later made an initial recommendation to separate McKnight from his position with the city. The recommendation was then accepted and approved by the Department Head, Director of Human Resources and City Manager. McKnight claimed that the decision to terminate him was based on his stutter, back injury and mental disability. McKnight sued the city and Crespo. McKnight alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted race discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate his disabilities, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The court ultimately granted summary judgment on McKnight’s race discrimination and wrongful termination causes of action. At trial, after the close of evidence, the court also granted defense counsel’s motion for a directed verdict as to McKnight’s disability discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination causes of action. Thus, the only claims that went to the jury were for the alleged failure to engage in the interactive process and the alleged failure to accommodate McKnight’s disabilities. McKnight claimed he was accused of driving unsafe during incidents wherein no one was injured, no property damage was sustained, and no complaints from passengers were received. He also claimed that the employee responsible for determining whether an incident was deemed unsafe did not make any findings for the alleged unsafe incidents. The plaintiff’s expert safety engineer testified that McKnight did not drive his bus in an unsafe manner and that McKnight actually performed consistent to what Santa Monica trained. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the reasons for McKnight’s termination were manufactured and a pretext for animus against McKnight for his disabilities. Defense counsel argued that McKnight was not “terminated,” but was “separated” during the probationary period when McKnight’s performance was found to be deficient. Counsel contended that McKnight received negative performance evaluations and that in January 2009, McKnight was involved in work-related driving incidents that broke the city’s rules of motor coach operation when he put passengers and other vehicles in danger. Additionally, counsel contended that McKnight was a full time probationary employee when he was separated. Thus, defense counsel argued that the city did not believe that the interactive process or accommodation was necessary because McKnight would have been fine in the position he was already doing (if it had not been for the negative evaluations and driving incidents) and because McKnight wanted to continue with the position he was already in., McKnight claimed that because of his termination, he was embarrassed and depressed, resulting in a loss of self-esteem. However, he did not seek treatment for his alleged termination-related emotional distress. Thus, McKnight sought recovery for lost wages and benefits, as well as for attorney fees and costs. He also sought recovery of damages for his emotional distress.