On May 25, 2017, plaintiff Yolanda Fierro, a recruiter for the temporary staffing agency Manpower Temporary Services, reported to her supervisor that she injured her right, dominant wrist, which impacted her ability to work. Fierro filed a workers’ compensation claim, and she went to a physician, who released her back to work with restrictions. Manpower accommodated Fierro’s restrictions. After Oct. 27, 2017, Fierro was discharged from care from her physician, as Fierro allegedly had no pain and seemed to be doing well. Fierro was ultimately terminated from her position with Manpower on Nov. 16, 2017. Fierro sued the operator of Manpower Temporary Services and Manpower of San Diego, CPM Ltd. Inc. Fierro alleged that CPM’s actions constituted disability discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation for filing the workers’ compensation claim, retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodation, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and unlawful and unfair business practices. Fierro discontinued her claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and of unlawful and unfair business practices. In addition, CPM was granted its motion for non-suit as to Fierro’s claim of retaliation for filing the workers’ compensation claim. As a result, the matter went forward on Fierro’s claims for disability discrimination, retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodation, and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. Fierro claimed that her injury impacted her productivity, which affected CPM’s profits and the decision-maker’s incentives, and that her disability would only get worse over time. She claimed that as a result, she was terminated because of her disability. Defense counsel argued that Fierro was terminated for misconduct, including unethical behavior that went against CPM’s core values and practices. Specifically, CPM’s counsel contended that Fierro’s supervisor learned that Fierro was placing candidates on assignments and then transferring those assignments to her name so that she could get credit for the placement and receive commission. Defense counsel argued that the transferring of assignments was not to be done unless there was manager approval, which Fierro did not have. Counsel also contended that Fierro’s supervisor learned that Fierro placed her daughter into a position and marked it as completed, when Fierro’s daughter did not complete it. Additionally, counsel contended that the supervisor learned that Fierro falsified the paperwork, including the permanent resident card, of a temporary candidate for a CPM client and that the client was unable to convert the worker to a long-term employee. Defense counsel argued that CPM learned of the unethical behavior, investigated the incidents and met with Fierro to see if she could provide an explanation and that when Fierro was unable to provide a reasonable explanation, CPM decided to terminate her for violation of CPM’s policies. In response, Fierro’s counsel argued that CPM’s alleged reasons for terminating Fierro were simply pretext for its unlawful reasons for terminating Fierro. Counsel also argued that CPM had no written policies prohibiting the misconduct alleged by the defense and that others at CPM engaged in the same behavior without issue. In addition, Fierro’s counsel argued that CPM failed to follow its own policies and procedures when conducting its investigation into Fierro’s purported misconduct., Fierro was out of work from December 2017 until she was hired by another company in July 2018. As a result, she claimed she suffered a loss of earnings during the time she was out of work. She also claimed she made a little less at her current employment, so she continues to suffer a loss of earnings due to the difference in wages. The parties stipulated that the base pay at Fierro’s new job was higher than that at CPM. CPM’s counsel also recognized that the salary at Fierro’s new employment would be higher due the ramp-up period of Fierro being a new employee and receiving commissions. The plaintiff’s expert economist calculated Fierro’s past loss of earnings at $51,000 for the gap of unemployment. The expert also opined that Fierro’s future loss of earnings would total $60,390, if Fierro worked to the age of 61.96, or would total $88,381, if Fierro worked until she was 67. Based on her calculations, the expert opined that Fierro’s total economic loss would be $111,624, if Fierro worked to age 61.96, or would be $139,614, if Fierro worked to age 67. Fierro claimed that in addition to lost wages, she suffered from emotional distress as a result her termination. Fierro sought recovery of past and future lost wages, emotional distress damages, and attorney fees. Defense counsel noted that Fierro did not treat with any providers or receive medication for her alleged emotional distress. Defense counsel also cross-examined the plaintiff’s economics expert and had her redo her calculations.