In August 2010, plaintiff Percy-Marie Lacy, an animal keeper for the San Francisco Zoo, attempted to come back to work following an injury, but requested workplace accommodation for her temporary restrictions. Lacy previously suffered a workplace injury in 2009 and required a medical leave of absence. During her leave, she underwent an agreed medical evaluation and was given five work restrictions, including restrictions on lifting and repetitive use. In August 2010, when Lacy’s condition improved, she requested a return to work and accommodations. The zoo stated that it was unable to accommodate Lacy’s restrictions and that Lacy should remain on leave. Lacy ultimately returned to work in September 2011, after she received a medical release with no restrictions, and currently remains employed in her former position. Lacy sued the San Francisco Zoological Society. She alleged the zoo’s actions constituted disability discrimination, a failure to reasonably accommodate her, a failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and a failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the zoo rejected Lacy’s accommodation request and refused to grant any accommodation other than continued unpaid leave. Counsel contended that Lacy’s restrictions were not severe, noting that in January 2011, Lacy was released by her doctor to return to work with one minor restriction — to not operate giraffe doors — and that in February 2011, Lacy was examined by another doctor and again released to work with one, temporary, minor restriction. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the zoo would not allow Lacy to return to work despite having multiple open positions that Lacy could perform within her restrictions and that Lacy was not allowed to return until after she had received a medical release with no restrictions. Defense counsel denied Lacy’s allegations about her restrictions being “minor,” asserting that Lacy’s restrictions were so severe that she could not perform the essential functions of the animal keeper position. Counsel also asserted that Lacy was either unqualified for, or unable to perform, any of the other open positions. Defense counsel contended that regardless of the alleged severity of Lacy’s restrictions, the San Francisco Zoological Society informed Lacy that it was the zoo’s “protocol” to never “return animal keepers to work until they are cleared to work full duties with no restrictions.”, Lacy, who was initially hired as an animal keeper for the San Francisco Zoo in 1995, sought recovery of approximately $50,000 in lost wages for the time she allegedly could have worked with restriction from August 2010 through September 2011. She also sought recovery of emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs.