Case Background
Tarra Castillo, a former Regional Sales Director at A Place For Mom, Inc. (APFM), sued her former employer in federal Court after APFM terminated her employment on November 27, 2023. Castillo worked remotely from her home in Oak Hills, San Bernardino County, California, from the time APFM hired her in July 2014 until her termination nearly a decade later.
APFM is a privately held, for-profit senior care referral company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. The company connects families searching for senior living options with care communities, which then pay APFM a referral fee.
Castillo began her career at APFM as a Community Relations Advisor. In September 2017, the company promoted her to Regional Sales Director, where she managed and mentored a team of Healthcare Account Executives in the West Central region. Her annual base salary at the time of her termination was $128,824.80.
Cause
Castillo filed a complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court in October 2024. APFM removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2024, citing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446.
Injury
Castillo alleged that APFM discriminated and retaliated against her because of her physical disability and her repeated requests for medical leave. She said her supervisor, Kathleen Elster, grew hostile toward her after she requested a six-week leave for a hysterectomy in May 2023. Castillo also said the company fired her while she was on medical leave in November 2023, shortly after she fainted at work and contracted COVID-19.
Damages Sought
Castillo sought compensatory damages, general damages, special damages, punitive and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Tarra Castillo
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Eduardo Olivo
Defendant: A Place For Mom, Inc.
· Counsel for Defendant: Matthew Donald Umhofer | Elizabeth A. Mitchell | C. Bryan Wilson | Angela Pyo | Elizabeth Peled | Jennalee Beazley
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff's counsel argued that APFM treated Castillo differently after she requested medical accommodations. Castillo's attorney pointed to a pattern of conduct by Elster that began when Castillo asked for six weeks of leave for surgery. According to Castillo's complaint, Elster questioned why the leave needed to be that long, told Castillo that she hoped the leave would last only two weeks, and launched a workplace investigation against Castillo while she was recovering — an investigation that APFM's own HR team shut down after another employee told HR that Elster's accusations were false.
Defense counsel countered that APFM fired Castillo for a legitimate business reason: she manipulated company records to inflate her compensation. Counsel argued that Castillo used her manager-level access to APFM's software system to manually alter referral credit records more than 60 times between August 2022 and October 2023, falsely attributing referrals to her team members that actually came through other channels. APFM said it discovered the irregularities in October 2023, asked Castillo to provide supporting documentation, and when she failed to do so over several weeks, terminated her employment.
Claims
Castillo brought three causes of action against APFM, all under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Disability Discrimination
Castillo alleged that APFM violated Government Code Section 12940(a) by terminating her because of her physical disability. She described a series of medical events beginning in February 2023, when excessive bleeding from a cyst forced her to modify her duties. She then underwent a hysterectomy in May 2023 and experienced post-surgical complications that extended her recovery through the summer. In November 2023, she fainted while working in the field, tested positive for COVID-19, and went on another leave — one that ran through December 3, 2023. APFM fired her on November 27, 2023, while she was still on that leave.
Retaliation Based on Request for Accommodation
Castillo alleged that APFM violated Government Code Section 12940(m)(2) by retaliating against her for requesting disability-related accommodations. She pointed to Elster's hostile reaction to her leave requests, the false investigation into the business cards, Elster's silent treatment after her return from surgery, and verbal criticisms about her email language and management style as evidence of a pattern of retaliation.
Retaliation for Opposing Forbidden Practices
Castillo alleged that APFM violated Government Code Section 12940(h) by terminating her after she complained to Elster's supervisor, James Thorman, about what she described as retaliation. Castillo said Thorman dismissed her complaint without investigation, telling her he did not think that was what was happening.
Defense
APFM denied all three of Castillo's claims and filed counterclaims of its own. The company said its investigation revealed that Castillo manually edited referral lead records in its software system on more than 60 occasions. By doing so, APFM argued, Castillo falsely credited her team members with referrals that came through other channels, such as APFM's website chat feature or word-of-mouth. Because Castillo's compensation partly depended on how many credited referrals led to move-ins at partner communities, the company argued her manipulation directly inflated her own pay.
APFM raised sixteen affirmative defenses, including that Castillo was an at-will employee lawfully terminated for a non-discriminatory reason, that APFM took reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, that a same-decision defense applied, and that Castillo's damages should be reduced under the doctrine of unclean hands and failure to mitigate.
APFM's counterclaims included intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, receiving stolen property under California Penal Code Section 496(c), and breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty. The company sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages under the stolen property statute, restitution and disgorgement of all compensation Castillo received during the period of her alleged misconduct, attorney's fees, and costs.
Jury Verdict
After a trial before the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal, United States District Judge, the jury returned a verdict entirely in favor of APFM on June 25, 2026.
On Castillo's Claims
The jury found against Castillo on all three of her FEHA claims disability discrimination, retaliation based on a request for accommodation, and retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA. Castillo took nothing on her claims.
On APFM's Counterclaims
The jury also found in favor of APFM on three of its counterclaims intentional misrepresentation (fraud), negligent misrepresentation (fraud), and breach of fiduciary duty. The judgment did not specify a dollar amount for APFM's counterclaims, noting that damages would follow according to proof. APFM also recovered its costs from Castillo under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
Judge Bernal entered final judgment on June 25, 2026, noting that all claims had been determined by the jury's verdict and that no reason for delay existed.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
