On Nov. 21, 2011, plaintiff Youa Her, a teller operations specialist at Bank of America, was terminated for her position. The next day, plaintiff Tricia Hennessey, an assistant manager at Bank of American, was also terminated from her position. Hennessey and Her claimed the banking center manager, Danny Villacis, made defamatory statements about why they were terminated. They also claimed that other Bank of America employees made statements about the reasons for their termination, as allegedly stated in their termination notices dated Nov. 21, 2011 and Nov. 22, 2011. Hennessey and Her sued Villacis and Bank of America. Hennessey and Her alleged that the statements made by Villacis and other Bank of America employees constituted defamation. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Villacis was previously transferred to the Shaw Westgate branch, where he supervised Hennessey and Her. Counsel contended that Villacis claimed that Hennessey and Her were terminated because they “violated Bank of America’s Code of Ethics,” “failed to follow Bank of America’s policies and procedures,” “falsified or inappropriately destroyed company records or documents,” and were “dishonest.” Plaintiff’s counsel argued that these statements helped cause the terminations of Hennessey and Her. Counsel also argued that Villacis’ statements were republished in several publications within the organization after the terminations of Hennessey and Her and that this hampered their ability to find comparable work, as Hennessey and Her had to repeat the statements when they were asked why they were terminated during interviews for replacement jobs. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that although Villacis was the only individual defendant named in the suit, Hennessey and Her claimed that two other bank agents also made defamatory statements about them. Defense counsel denied that any alleged defamatory statements were made about Hennessey and/or Her., Hennessey and Her each claimed harm and damages to their occupation and reputation. They also claimed they suffered emotional distress. Hennessey claimed that she was attempting to get pregnant and that her benefits with the company provided the opportunity to get pregnant through in vitro fertilization. However, she claimed that she was in the middle of the process when her termination occurred, causing her to lose the ability to continue the IVF process because she could no longer afford it. She also claimed she lost her house and that she could not find other employment. Her was engaged at the time of her termination. She claimed she also had trouble finding other employment and that she had to make difficult choices, such as whether her children would get new clothing or whether the electricity bill would be paid.