In June 2013, plaintiff Kourtney Liggins, 41, a science teacher at Transfiguration School, a Roman Catholic school in Los Angeles, was terminated from her position. She claimed that after she complained about pregnancy discrimination, the school decided to not renew her contract at the end of the school year. Liggins sued Transfiguration School; the Archdiocese of Los Angeles; the principal at the school, Evelyn Rickenbacker; and the pastor at the church and school, Michael Tang. Liggins, who was single and the mother of six children, claimed that she was targeted for being pregnant out of wedlock. Specifically, she alleged that Tang told her that her pregnancy would “morally corrupt” impressionable teens at the school. She also alleged that Tang called her baby an “it,” despite knowing the baby’s gender, and that when she was eight months pregnant in the summer of 2012, Tang told her that she should not bring “it” to campus. She further alleged that she was asked to return early from maternity leave and that despite not having any complaints against her prior to her pregnancy, she was suddenly accused of poor teaching performance. Liggins claimed that when she complained of the illegal conduct in the church, she was terminated and that Tang changed her personnel file to include fake complaints from parents to justify her termination. Defense counsel argued that Tang and Rickenbacker jointly decided not to renew Liggins’ contract based, in part, on complaints by parents about Liggins’ tardiness and cellphone use during class time. Counsel also argued that the decision to not renew Liggins’ contract for another year was the result of her poor performance and classroom management, and had nothing to do with Liggins’ pregnancy or complaint. In response, Liggins claimed that any tardiness was due to nursing her newborn daughter and that any cellphone conversations she had in the classroom were directly related to parents’ inquiries. She also claimed that there were documents in her employee file that she had never seen before because Tang had fabricated them., Liggins, who had taught at the school since 1998, claimed that she had been unable to find a comparable job and that she suffers emotional distress as a rest of the defendants’ treatment of her. She alleged that she is still dealing with emotional distress as a result of Tang’s actions. The plaintiff’s psychiatry expert testified that Liggins suffered from major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from the defendants treatment of her after she returned from her maternity leave and from the termination of her employment. Liggins claimed that Tang’s actions constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress, and she sought recovery of punitive damages against Tang as a result of his conduct.