In 2010, plaintiff Carmen Cortes, 54, a Puerto Rican auditor-appraiser who worked out of the county of Santa Clara’s Assessor’s Office, was terminated from her position. Cortes claimed that at some point during her employment, she started to complain about allergies and sensitivity to odors in the office, as the condition affected her work performance. She alleged that as a result, she requested accommodation, including relocation, but that her request was denied. Cortes also claimed that she was illegally disciplined, resulting in suspensions in 2009 and 2010, and was ultimately terminated at the end of 2010 for not meeting performance quotas that her non-Hispanic co-workers were not required to meet. Cortes sued her employer, the county of Santa Clara. She alleged that the county’s actions constituted race discrimination in violation of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, as well as disability discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation under various statutes, and failure to engage in the interactive process. Cortes’ claims of disability discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation under various statutes, and failure to engage in the interactive process were dropped at summary judgment. In 2013, Judge Edward Davila awarded judgment in favor of Santa Clara County. However, Cortes appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which revived her discrimination claim. Thus, the matter was sent back to be retried in the district court. During the retrial, plaintiff’s counsel contended that when Cortes was hired by the county, the auditor-appraisers in the Assessor’s Office were predominantly Asian. Specifically, counsel noted that of the 47 auditor-appraisers who worked at the office from 2005 until 2013, approximately 76 percent of them are of Asian descent. Six months after Cortes started her employment with the county, Cortes’ Asian co-worker was promoted to be her full-time supervisor. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Cortes was the only non-Asian auditor-appraiser hired at the office between 2005 and 2013 and that Cortes was the first and only auditor-appraiser at the county to ever be disciplined, and ultimately terminated, for failing to meet alleged performance quotas. Thus, counsel argued that between 2005 and 2010, Cortes was illegally disciplined and ultimately terminated for not meeting performance quotas that her non-Hispanic comparators were not required to meet. Counsel further argued that the alleged performance issues were either made up (pre-textual) or were issues that other, non-Hispanic employees were not disciplined over. Defense counsel denied Cortes’ allegations, and contended that Cortes consistently failed to finish work assignments in a satisfactory and timely fashion, even after her workload was reduced and deadlines were extended. Thus, counsel argued that all of Cortes’ discipline was warranted., Cortes was hired in June 2005 and terminated five years later. She was earning approximately $70,000 per year at the time she was terminated. Thus, Cortes sought recovery of back pay, front pay, loss of benefits, and emotional distress damages.