In October 2008, plaintiff Tiffany Valentine, a security guard with Inter-Con Security Systems Inc., returned from a pregnancy leave and found that she was removed from post at an Employment Development Department office in Lancaster and was allegedly offered an alternate position at an aqueduct in Santa Barbara. However, Inter-Con claimed it offered Valentine three alternate positions; two at the Pearblossom Aqueduct and one at the Department of Motor Vehicles. On Dec. 6, 2008, Valentine filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on the basis of sexual discrimination. She ultimately formally resigned from Inter-Con in July 2010. Valentine sued the California Employment Development Department and an employment program manager at the Lancaster office, Sory Hinton. She expanded the charges of her EEOC complaint to include racial discrimination and hostile work environment, under Title VII, plus disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Valentine’s EEOC charge alleged that she believed she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex, because she was replaced by a male security guard. In her civil complaint, she added a claim of racial discrimination, and alleged that Hinton and an Inter-Con manager both called her racially offensive names combined with gender-based insults. Valentine alleged that this occurred several times a week before her pregnancy and on a daily basis after she returned from maternity leave. At trial, Valentine testified to four events where such language was allegedly used over a period of three years. She claimed in her deposition that Hinton yelled epithets at her in the public area of the office, from a distance of 20-30 feet, with 15 to 20 customers and employees present. However, she did not repeat this testimony at trial. Hinton was voluntarily dismissed from the lawsuit before trial. The Employment Development Department denied that it was a joint employer, and denied that any discrimination, harassment or FMLA violations occurred. It also presented evidence that Valentine was offered three other security guard assignments by Inter-Con, but turned them down. Defense counsel contended that Valentine’s allegations did not actually occur. The Employment Development Department claimed that it requested that Valentine be reassigned because the security guard who filled in for her did a more professional job, and because she became too familiar with the site and was neglecting her security duties. Defense counsel noted that a friend of Valentine’s, who worked for another employer on the Employment Development Department premises, testified that Valentine stopped by her cubicle to chat every day for about five to 10 minutes, and regularly stopped by other employees’ cubicles to chat. Defense counsel also noted that the friend testified that she never witnessed any improper conduct from Hinton towards Valentine. Hinton and the field office manager testified that Valentine could often not be found when needed and that when she was located, she tended to be on her cell phone in the parking lot, talking with friends, or using an Employment Development Department computer for personal matters. The Employment Development Department also claimed it received complaints that Valentine was rude to customers., Valentine claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the discrimination against her and transfer to another office. Valentine sought recovery of $73,859 in damages for her past lost earnings from Oct. 13, 2008, through Nov. 30, 2011. She also sought recovery of $122,461 in damages for her future lost earnings from Dec. 1, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2016. She also sought recovery of emotional-distress damages of roughly the same amount. Defense counsel argued that Valentine should be awarded zero damages.