In 2009, plaintiff Kelly O’Haire, an internal affairs attorney for the San Francisco Police Department, handled a discipline case against Deputy Chief Greg Suhr. O’Haire reported to her supervisors and Chief Heather Fong that she believed Suhr had violated the Penal Code by responding to a domestic violence incident involving a friend and then failing to immediately report it. Suhr also allegedly failed to make an arrest of the perpetrator, who was later charged with attempted murder. Upon investigating the incident, O’Haire sought to bring Suhr’s history of skirting the law before the Police Commission in order to support a case for his termination. However, when Fong retired, the District Attorney of San Francisco settled the Suhr case with a five-day suspension. In 2011, 2.5 weeks after Mayor Edwin Lee appointed Suhr Chief of Police, Suhr fired O’Haire. O’Haire sued Suhr and Suhr’s employer, the city and county of San Francisco. O’Haire alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation for being a whistleblower. O’Haire claimed that Suhr’s attorney in the matter regarding the domestic violence incident threatened her, stating that “she didn’t know how this city worked” and that if Suhr became Chief of Police, it would be “an employment problem for her.” O’Haire also claimed that others in the Police Officer’s Association informed her that Suhr would “take her out” when he became Chief of Police. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the District Attorney of San Francisco informed Mayor Lee and his Chief of Staff, Steve Kawa, that O’Haire’s termination was retaliatory and could be a problem for the city. However, counsel contended that both Lee and Kawa told the District Attorney that they were not going to do anything about it. Defense counsel contended that O’Haire prosecuted the discipline case against Suhr at former Chief Fong’s direction and under her name. Counsel also contended that the friend in the alleged domestic violence incident was initially reluctant to report the incident, notwithstanding Suhr’s encouragement to do so. Counsel further contended that as part of her handling of the matter, O’Haire sought to raise three prior rule violations to strengthen the case against Suhr and that, at the time of the incident, Suhr had served the department for 30 years. However, defense counsel asserted that O’Haire was not a whistleblower because Suhr was only aware that O’Haire reported him for violating police department general orders and was unaware that she had reported him for violations of law. Counsel also asserted that O’Haire failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and failed to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act. In addition, defense counsel asserted that several other high-ranking police department officials were demoted and that O’Haire’s position was one of three positions eliminated from the Chief’s command staff. Counsel further asserted that the changes were occasioned by a $12 million budget deficit that Suhr had inherited., O’Haire worked in internal affairs for the San Francisco Police Department from 2006 to 2011. She claimed that after her termination in 2011, she was unable to find employment in other public agencies as an attorney. She alleged that as a result, she suffers emotional distress. Thus, O’Haire sought recovery for her lost wages and loss of retirement benefits.