In January 2014, plaintiff Stephen Colucci, 35, a store manager for T-Mobile, was allegedly told by his new, incoming supervisor, Brian Robson, that he was scheduled to be transferred to another work location: a kiosk located inside the Ontario Mills Mall. Colucci suffers agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder and panic disorder based on witnessing a stabbing incident when he was a teenager. Colucci allegedly disclosed his condition to Robson and, the next day, to the human resources director. Specifically, he allegedly told them that he had an anxiety disorder that would interfere with his ability to work in the congested mall’s kiosk. As a result, Colucci was not transferred to the kiosk. However, Colucci claimed that after he disclosed his condition, he felt harassed by Robson, so he made a complaint to T-Mobile’s integrity hotline. Colucci claimed that within hours of making his complaint, Robson decided to terminate him. Ultimately, in July 2014, Colucci was terminated from his position. Colucci sued Robson and his employer, T-Mobile USA Inc. Colucci alleged that Robson’s actions constituted retaliation and disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. He also alleged several wage claims based on off-the-clock activities and missed meals/breaks. In addition, Colucci alleged that T-Mobile was liable for Robson’s actions and failed to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA. Robson was dismissed post-demurrer on a stipulation that kept the matter in state court. Colucci claimed that after he disclosed his anxiety disorder, Robson thought the disclosure was “ridiculous” and told him, “H.R. will handle you.” As a result, Colucci spoke with the human resources director the next day and promptly obtained a doctor’s note from a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with agoraphobia with panic disorder/post-traumatic stress disorder, per T-Mobile’s request. Later, in early July 2014, a store employee who had been placed on a serious performance plan the day before complained to Robson that Colucci was allegedly using a T-Mobile fax machine, printer, and time to run his side business. Colucci contended that the employee’s complaint was biased since he had just been written up and that there was no physical evidence showing a conflict of interest. He also contended that he had concerns about other store employees who were allegedly defaming him and trying to get him fired after he had instituted a new “no-personal-cell-phones-used-in-the-store” policy for a well-stated business reason. Colucci claimed that as a result, he confronted Robson about his concerns on July 21, 2014, but that Robson asked him if this was “another one of your stories” and told him to “quit complaining.” As a result, Colucci accused Robson of treating him unfairly and discriminating against him based on his disclosure of his anxiety condition. Later that same day, Colucci made an integrity line complaint about Robson. The next day, Robson approached Colucci in the store, and Colucci complained directly to Robson about the disability discrimination. After the confrontation Colucci took some personal time off after requesting a leave of absence related to his anxiety and a serious back injury that required surgery a few months later. However, while he was out on his paid time off/requested leave of absence, Colucci received a termination letter that allegedly did not state a reason for the termination. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that although Robson denied that Colucci’s request for accommodation was an inconvenience, the fact that more work was required on Robson’s part due to the staffing problem caused by Colucci’s disability made it obvious that it would be a problem for Robson, who needed to step-back, re-evaluate his store manager staffing needs, and deal with human resources regarding the first-of-its-type mental-illness disability. Counsel also contended that although Colucci spoke human resources directly, the human resources director did not understand Colucci’s medical condition and had never before dealt with an employee with a mental illness seeking a workplace accommodation. However, the director testified that, as of January 2014, Robson knew, based on human resources’ instructions, that Colucci was “protected” from an adverse employment action by T-Mobile because of Colucci’s anxiety disorder/disability. In regard to the employee’s complaint in early July 2014, plaintiff’s counsel contended that T-Mobile already knew that Colucci owned a car broker business, as several T-Mobile employees had side businesses, and that there was “no offense,” i.e. no conflict of interest. However, counsel argued that T-Mobile’s investigation of the alleged conflict was incomplete, in that T-Mobile failed to review the company time sheets, fax machine logs, cell phone records, video surveillance tape, or any other information that would have easily disproved the biased employee’s remarks. Counsel further argued that T-Mobile never interviewed Colucci and, instead, relied wholeheartedly on the biased subordinate’s complaint to justify Colucci’s later termination. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that, when asked at trial, “Why didn’t you wait until Colucci returned from his 30-day disability leave of absence to interview him,” the human resources director testified, “We could have [waited].” In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that even if there was some merit to the biased subordinate’s charge of a conflict, T-Mobile did not utilize progressive discipline and, thus, the punishment did not fit the offense. As to Colucci’s claim that Robson was treating him unfairly and discriminating against him, plaintiff’s counsel noted that Robson confirmed the complaints in an email to human resources two hours after his confrontation with Colucci. Counsel also contended that two hours after Robson sent the email to human resources (four hours after Colucci complained directly to his manager), Robson sought approval from human resources to terminate Colucci. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that human resources supported the termination decision, but Robson testified about an email he had received from T-Mobile’s leave of absence team instructing him not to communicate with Colucci while his request for leave was being processed. Thus, counsel argued that human resources could not adequately explain why it allowed Robson, who was the subject of Colucci’s discrimination complaint, to make the termination decision. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that even though Robson was told not to communicate with Colucci, Robson personally prepared and mailed a termination letter to Colucci while Colucci was out on his paid time off/requested leave of absence. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that T-Mobile knew that Colucci’s termination was improper, in that the internal termination paperwork from the human resources director to his superior at the time of the termination noted that “litigation is probable.” T-Mobile admitted that Colucci requested an accommodation to work in a store location that had a clear exit strategy, preferably not in a crowded, congested location such as a busy shopping mall. Robson also testified that he said, “H.R. will handle the matter,” but he denied saying that Colucci’s condition was “ridiculous.” However, he admitted at trial that he expressed “surprise” when hearing about the disclosure because he had never before had to accommodate an employee with a mental illness. In addition, Robson admitted that Colucci’s inability to transfer to the kiosk location created more work in the form of “more moves” for him, as he was coming in as the new district manager. However, defense counsel argued that Colucci was properly fired for due to a conflict of interest., Colucci claimed that he had never been disciplined or written up in his seven-year career as a store manager for T-Mobile and that he had received “achieves expectations” on his performance review prior to his termination. Colucci claimed that he had rushed into a job shortly after being terminated by T-Mobile, after recovering from his back surgery, but that he felt the employer was unethical, so he quit after a few months. He then had a three-month gap before landing his current job. Colucci claimed that although he is working again, he is earning $60,000, which is down from the $95,000 per year he was earning at T-Mobile. Colucci was examined by his treating doctor in 2014 and by the plaintiff’s psychology expert in 2017, and was diagnosed with psychological injuries. Thus, Colucci sought recovery for his lost pay and for his alleged emotional distress damages. T-Mobile’s counsel argued that Colucci’s economic damages should have been cut-off with the job he quit. The defense’s psychology expert did not examine Colucci, but testified that, based on his review of the plaintiff’s psychology expert’s report, Colucci experienced emotional distress as a result of the termination, but did not suffer from a psychological injury.