Right to that twist in "the price is right" lawsuit. A judge ov a $7.7 million verdict awarded to one of the show's models who said she was discriminated against and ultimately fired because she got... See More
Right to that twist in "the price is right" lawsuit. A judge ov a $7.7 million verdict awarded to one of the show's models who said she was discriminated against and ultimately fired because she got pregnant. Now that judgment has been overturned on a technicality. Abc's paula faris is here with the latest. That original judge didn't properly instruct the jury, thus, a retrial has been ordered. But the model still believes she has a strong case and says she is in it for the long haul. The lovely brandi. Reporter: It seems the verdict wasn't right for a california judge who ordered a new trial in the discrimination claim of former "the price is right" model brandi cochran. ♪ Reporter: Last november the 41-year-old won $7.7 million in her lawsuit against "the price is right" productions and its producers arguing she was discriminated against after she became pregnant and wrongfully terminated following h maternity leave in 2010. I would not have lost my job if I hadn't gotten pregnant. Reporter: Well, the case is going back to court after defense attorneys argued the trial judge made instructional and prejudicial errors in his instructions to the jury by failing to say discrimination must be a substantial motivating factor for termination. Overnight the show's producers who appealed the first verdict told abc news, "we are pleased that the judge vacated the improper verdict in the cochran trial. We look forward to fully vindicating our position in this case." But cochran's attorney says there was no mistake made. The evidence will prove to another jury that this discrimination occurred. I'm not gg up because i really -- I believe in what I'm fighting for. Reporter: The former miss usa who was pregnant with twins tragically lost her son after birth and her daughter katie who is now 4 years old was born with significant health problems. I want to be able to look at katie one day and say, katie, sometimes you have to stand up for things in life and it's going to be hard but you have to stick in there and not give up. Reporter: The new date for the trial has not been set. But cochran says she will continue to fight for what is right. I think the evidence is there and we'll just have to prove it again. Now, cochran was originally awarded $7.7 million. Upon retrial her attorney expects her to get triple or quadruple that amount but as alluded to she believes she would still have that job if she had not gotten pregnant. Let's bring in "gma" legal analyst dan abrams. Basically it was overturned because the judges failed to say one word in jury instructions. You say it's more than a technicality it's the ultimate legal technicality but really important legal technicality because you're talking about the difference between pregnancy being a motoring separating in why she was fired or not hired versus it being a substantial motivating factor. But isn't it illegal to hire or fire anybody because they're pregnant for any reason? Well, not -- it depends on what level meaning in this case and in california based on this new ruling from the california supreme court has to have been a substantial reason meaning if it's one of a number of reasons saying, well, we believe it was this and this and this and this and let's say it was 80% -- why even throw in the pregnancy and just say it was this, this and this and the pregnancy had nothing to do with it. The defense is that. The can he is what does the jury find and the point is that in essence the jury played by the wrong set of rules. When they applied the standard and it really is a big difference. Remember the difference in a criminal and civil case, we say the difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt versus just more likely than not and it makes an enormous difference in rdicts when you're talking about those different kinds of stand darts. What are her chances to win again in the retrial. It will be tougher. I don't know what her lawyer is talking about hoping to get four times as much. In this case they asked for 8 million and got 7.7 million and they're talking about it's some sort of victory and a trial. And more money. Maybe they will but the notion that this is somehow a victory for the defense is ridiculous. Just sort of raised the bar. And now have to go through the process and expense of trying it agai again, $7.7 million on an $8 million request, pretty good. Dan abrams, thanks. We'll turn to that
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.