On March 30, 2013, plaintiff Blanca Ramirez, 54, a team leader at a Jack in the Box restaurant, reported to the company’s ethics hotline that she believed her restaurant manager, a 31-year-old married woman, had become involved in a love triangle with two subordinates and had sent profanity-laced text messages and partially nude photographs to a 17-year-old female that was involved. Such conduct violated the company’s “zero-tolerance” policy against harassment or discrimination of any kind. The district manager investigated the report and then transferred and reprimanded the manager. Although Ramirez’s complaint was supposed to be “anonymous,” her identity was revealed to the restaurant’s assistant manager, Sandy Oliveros, who allegedly confronted Ramirez and began to harass her. Ramirez claimed that she suffered a work-related injury in June 2013, two months after she made her complaint. She claimed that she was never accommodated for her injury-related disabilities and that harassment escalated thereafter. On Aug. 29, 2013, Ramirez reported a 22-year-old male supervisor that had allegedly been engaging in, what she perceived to be, sexual misconduct in the workplace with 16-year-old cashiers who reported to the supervisor. Within a week of the complaint, the district manager fired Ramirez for “parking” a car that was delaying the drive-through line. Ramirez was immediately replaced by someone 21 years younger. Ramirez sued her employer, Jack in the Box Inc., and the assistant manage that allegedly confronted her, Sandy Oliveros. Ramirez alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted workplace harassment, disability discrimination, age discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation and wrongful discharge. Oliveros was ultimately dismissed from the case. Ramirez’s counsel contended that although Ramirez’s complaint was supposed to be “anonymous,” Ramirez’s identity was revealed to the restaurant’s assistant manager, Oliveros, who began to harass her in retaliation for making the complaint. Counsel also contended that Jack in the Box violated its “zero-tolerance” policy when the district manager did nothing more than transfer and reprimand the manager. Counsel further contended that after Ramirez was injured on the job, she was never accommodated for her disabilities and that, instead, Oliveros began to call her “grandma” in response to the way she moved around the restaurant as a result of her injury. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that there was no policy against parking cars, which was a widespread, accepted practice. Counsel contended that the assistant manager even knew of the practice and condoned it and that all of the employees at the restaurant engaged in it when necessary. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that, nevertheless, Ramirez was the only employee who was fired for doing it. As a result, counsel argued that Jack in the Box fired Ramirez because of her two complaints about sexual harassment in the workplace. Defense counsel denied that Ramirez was injured on the job or that Ramirez ever asked for accommodation. Counsel also denied there was any harassment or retaliation. Instead, defense counsel argued that Jack in the Box fired Ramirez for manipulating the restaurant’s internal system for measuring “employee performance metrics,” explaining that parking cars was a form of “manipulation of the speed of service.” Counsel further argued that it was within the district manager’s discretion to fire Ramirez, regardless of her performance history. In addition, defense counsel noted that, during cross-examination, Ramirez admitted that she sometimes worked off the clock for a few minutes, which defense counsel argued was “after acquired” evidence and that Ramirez would have been fired anyway, had it been known that she had worked off the clock., Ramirez worked as a supervisor for Jack in the Box for 12 years. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Ramirez had a pristine performance record with no warnings or write-ups. Ramirez claimed that she was able to obtain other employment five weeks after her termination and is now a live-in housekeeper for a family in Pacific Palisades, but that she suffered a loss of income during those five weeks. She also claimed that she does not earn as much as she used to at Jack in the Box. Ramirez further claimed that she suffers emotional distress as a result of the incidents at Jack in the Box. Ramirez sought recovery of past and future loss of wages, and damages for her past and future emotional pain and suffering. She also sought recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel argued that Ramirez’s emotional distress was due to the death of her third son, who was killed while working for the Red Cross in 2008. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that during cross-examination, it was revealed that Ramirez’s treating emergency room physician at a Kaiser facility had allegedly received $500 to speak with defense counsel and that the physician had done so without authorization.