Between April 2011 and August 2011, plaintiff Soheila Abyane, a Supervising Children’s Social Worker for the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), made several written complaints against her new supervisor. Abyane, who is Persian, claimed she was the only non-African-American Supervising Children’s Social Worker reporting to the new supervisor, who is African-American. She claimed the new supervisor’s actions toward her constituted discrimination and harassment in violation of her civil rights, and that this created a hostile work environment. On March 27, 2012, Abyane was terminated by the DCFS. Abyane claimed that she had previously obtained her prior supervisors’ approval to engage in her outside business, a parenting education program, but that the DCFS fired her for allegedly creating a conflict of interest with respect to her outside employment activities. Abyane sued the county of Los Angeles, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Abyane claimed that there was no conflict of interest with respect to her outside business and that her allegations against her new supervisor were not thoroughly investigated. She alleged that she was continuously employed as a Supervising Children’s Social Worker for the DCFS for 24 years and that she had an excellent track record with a history of awards, certifications and “very good” performance ratings. However, she claimed that a few months after she was assigned to report to a second supervisor in February 2011, she began to face several incidents of discrimination and unfair treatment, including the new supervisor making racist remarks about her and Iranians. Abyane claimed that the DCFS, by and through her new supervisor, and her previously assigned supervisor were aware of her complaints of discrimination, harassment and there being a hostile work environment prior to making the termination decision, but that her complaints were not investigated. She further claimed that her previously assigned supervisor made the termination decision with input from her new supervisor prior to the DCFS completing its investigation of the alleged conflict of interest and that both supervisors informed her of the termination. Defense counsel asserted that Abyane had an outside business teaching parenting classes and that Abyane only advertised her business on the County 211 information line. Counsel contended that in November 2010, Abyane accepted three new clients, but did not determine if they were DCFS clients. Defense counsel contended that Abyane was contacted by a social worker for a progress report and that Abyane submitted a written progress report for the court to make its evaluation and determination for a March 3, 2011 status hearing. However, counsel noted that the progress report was flagged by an in-court DCFS supervisor as raising an issue of a conflict of interest because, as a DCFS employee, Abyane was supposed to be representing the child’s interests, not the interests of the parent. The matter was subsequently brought to the attention of Abyane’s new supervisor of less than one month. Defense counsel contended that the conflict was then brought to Abyane’s attention on March 3, 2011, and that Abyane was counseled and advised that the matter was being turned over for review and investigation by the department. Counsel noted the matter was determined to be serious and was set for an investigation on May 15, 2011. Counsel contended that in between the time of the counseling and the commencement of the investigation, Abyane sent her new supervisor two memos about overtime and about her performance evaluation ratings being a mix of competent and very good ratings. At the end of these memos, Abyane wrote a one-line sentence claiming a hostile work environment, and stating she believed in liberty and justice for all. Defense counsel further contended that the investigation concluded in August 2011, and that Abyane had two Skelly hearings where the hearing officer remained unpersuaded. Thus, defense counsel denied that there was any racist remarks or unfair treatment, and argued that Abyane was terminated for a conflict of interest. Counsel also argued that at the time of the completion of the investigation, Abyane’s previously assigned supervisor had the authority to terminate people, but that approximately one month later, that authority was taken away from all Regional Administrators and it became the responsibility of the director of the department. Defense counsel contended that as a result, the director then reviewed the investigation evidence and made the determination to terminate Abyane., Abyane claimed that she suffered emotional distress, resulting in disassociation, depression and loss of weight. She testified that she would go home from work and cry, and was sick to her stomach as a result of the hostile work environment. Her husband also testified about her alleged emotional distress. Thus, Abyane sought recovery of past and future economic damages, and past and future emotional distress damages.