In December 2014, plaintiff Subhi Dilawari, 25, began working for Deep KB Enterprises Inc.’s gas station, in Cudahy. About two weeks later, she was transferred to Hill Top Sunrise Inc.’s Circle K convenience store, which was owned by the same owners. During her first week at the convenience store, Dilawari dropped a box that she was carrying, her right wrist. She subsequently present to her doctor, was given a brace and told to take a few days off. However, Dilawari claimed the owners refused to give her a day off and made her work the next couple days before allowing her to take one day off. Dilawari later learned that she was not on the schedule for the next week from her brother, who also worked for the same owners. As a result, Dilawari went to her place of employment to find out what was going on with the schedule and to see when her shifts would be for the following week, but found that she was no longer listed on the schedule. Dilawari sued Deep KB Enterprises Inc.; Hill Top Sunrise Inc.; and the owners of the two companies, Gaganteep Kaur and Bharpur Singh. Mohan Singh was initially erroneously named as a defendant, but was ultimately removed from the case once it was learned that Mohan Singh was not an owner. The right owner, Gaganteep Kaur, was then substituted into the case. However, both Gaganteep Kaur and Bharpur Singh were dismissed from the case shortly before trial, and the matter continued against the two companies. Dilawari claimed that Deep KB Enterprises and Hill Top Sunrise failed to pay her appropriate wages and overtime, and failed provide meal and rest breaks. Thus, she sought recovery of associated waiting time and wage statement penalties. She also claimed that when she requested time off due to an injury, she was initially denied the recommended time off and then was retaliated against by being removed from the schedule. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the actions of Deep KB Enterprises and Hill Top Sunrise constituted retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 98.6 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination. Defense counsel noted that although Dilawari contended at trial that she was terminated, she initially claimed that she was constructively discharged. Thus, counsel argued that Dilawari simply never returned to work and that Dilawari stopped working of her own accord. In response, Dilawari claimed that she could not return to work because she was never placed on the schedule. She further claimed that she was officially terminated when she confronted Kaur about not being on the schedule again after the second week and was given her a wage check., Dilawari’s right wrist injury was thought to be a sprain and she was subsequently provided with a removable brace. She brought a workers’ compensation case regarding the injury, but the matter settled. Thus, Dilawari sought recovery of wage-related damages and penalties for the alleged overtime, break, and wage-statement violations. She also sought recovery of lost wages as a result of her alleged wrongful termination. (However, Dilawari ultimately secured other employment in February 2015.) In addition, Dilawari claimed she suffered from emotional distress as a result of the events. Thus, she sought recovery of additional damages for her emotional pain and suffering.