In the fall of 2008, plaintiff Shantel Thornton, a black female probationary college professor of psychology, started her four-year probationary employment with the El Camino Community College District. After starting the semester, Thornton met with her division dean on several occasions, during which the dean advised her of the school district’s expectations and gave her advice as to how to interact with students. At the end of the spring semester, in 2012, Thornton was not renewed for employment. She claimed her employment was not renewed due to her race and gender. Thornton sued El Camino Community College District, alleging race and gender discrimination, as well as workplace harassment. Thornton initially claimed that a professor sexually harassed her, but she later dropped her harassment claim at the beginning of trial, and the case only continued on Thornton’s gender and race claims. Thornton claimed that since the start of her four-year probationary employment, she was treated differently because she is a black female. She alleged that her division dean met with her on several occasions to advise her of the dean’s expectations and how to interact with black students. She also claimed that the dean made several racially-motivated comments toward her, which included comments about how she should “try not to look like a student” and about how she was a “role model to black students.” Thornton also claimed that dean told her that she should wear “power suits,” that she needed to be a “shining star,” that she needed to “give 150 percent,” that she needed to modify her braided hairstyle, and that she needed to change the sound of her voice. Thornton further claimed that the dean referenced other black professors whom the dean wanted her to emulate. Thornton alleged that she attempted to comply with the dean’s instructions, including wearing suits, but that she noticed that some of her male colleagues, who were tenured professors, regularly dressed in shorts, t-shirts, jeans, and sweatpants. In addition, she claimed that peer evaluators that were favorable toward her were purposefully not selected to be on peer evaluator panels that evaluated her during her probationary period. Defense counsel contended that the dean met with Thornton so as to give her advice on improving her professional skills with students, as many of Thornton’s students had come to the dean’s office to complain about her. Counsel noted that in the dean’s over 15 years’ of experience as a dean, she had not had an instance where such a high number of students complained about a probationary teacher as they did in Thornton’s case. Counsel also contended that the pre-established process for selecting peer evaluators was followed and that it did not change as to Thornton. In addition, defense counsel contended that during the course of Thornton’s probationary employment, various peer evaluators had noted concerns regarding Thornton’s effectiveness, including expert content of her lectures, organization of class time, lack of clarity of her syllabi, student complaints and ratings, inefficient use of PowerPoint slides, and interactions with students. Thus, counsel noted that Thornton received “satisfactory” or “needs improvement” evaluations prior to her last evaluation. Defense counsel contended that concerns regarding Thornton’s performance were identified in her first semester, but that concerns continued into Thornton’s eighth semester of her probationary period. Counsel contended that as Thornton failed to improve, her eighth and final evaluation resulted in an “unsatisfactory” rating and that, therefore, Thornton was not granted tenure. Defense counsel further noted that it was the same evaluation panel that recommended on previous evaluations that Thornton continue in her four-year probationary employment period that, at the end of Thornton’s probationary period, recommended that Thornton not be granted tenure. In addition, defense counsel argued that if the evaluators wanted to discriminate against Thornton, they would not have recommended that Thornton continue in her probationary employment period after earlier evaluations., Thornton was earning approximately $90,000 per year, plus benefits, at the time her employment was not renewed. Thus, she sought recovery of lost wages in the amount of approximately $200,000. She also sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress, though she did not seek counseling. Defense counsel noted that the plaintiff’s vocational economist was disqualified as an expert economist during trial and was subsequently only allowed to testify as to the vocational aspect of the plaintiff’s case.