On April 25, 2011, plaintiff Celia Hartnett, who was formerly chief executive officer of Forensic Analytical Sciences Inc., was terminated from her position. Hartnett was acting as a chief technical officer when fired. Hartnett claimed that since 2011 when David Kahane, founder of the company, hired a business consultant to improve the company’s financial earnings, Kahane and the consultant allegedly intended to start illegal practices for the company. When Hartnett complained, she was terminated for whistleblowing, she claimed. The business consultant was introduced to the company on Feb. 22 as the new chief executive officer and Hartnett was then terminated. Hartnett also claimed that Kahane failed to pay her two years severance he allegedly agreed to. The company was originally known as Forensic Analytical with three divisions. Hartnett, who worked at the company since 2002, was head of the crime lab division. In 2007, the three divisions split into three different companies. The crime lab became a stand-alone company called Forensic Analytical Sciences and Hartnett was made chief executive officer of that company. Hartnett initially sued Forensic Analytical Sciences, Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Forensic Analytical Laboratories, Forensic Analytical Specialties and Kahane. The plaintiff dismissed the sister entities and went to trial against Forensic Analytical Sciences and Kahane for wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation and breach of contract. The plaintiff contended that she was not uncooperative with the business consultant and Kahane. She claimed that illegal or inappropriate business practices included destroying evidence. The plaintiff also contended that Kahane promised her two years severance if Kahane ever replaced her for any reason. Defense counsel argued that Hartnett was not terminated for being uncooperative in her new role. Defense counsel also noted that the Crime Lab during Hartnett’s tenure since 2002 was never profitable. Though Hartnett initially agreed that the consultant should be brought in and the company should be doing better, there were at least 10 instances from February to April 2011 when Hartnett was difficult and it seemed like she was trying to sabotage the transition, the defense contended. Kahane claimed that during these two months Hartnett chafed as his decision and didn’t respond well to her demotion. The defense argued that the deciding incident that led to the plaintiff’s firing was when the consultan inquired The defense contended that the deciding incident that led to Hartnett’s termination was when the business consultant asked if the evidence locker, which contained more than 20 years’ worth of evidence, could be evaluated for return to clients or disposition. Hartnett then sent an email to the consultant and Kahane stating, “at yesterday’s meeting you and [Kahane] proposed destroying evidence, and you should know that destroying evidence is a crime.” The defense contended that Hartnett intentionally mischaracterized the company’s actions. Also, Kahane claimed that he never agreed to any severance package. There was an email she sent to her husband and a note from a meeting with Kahane that said he would give her two years severance “if he sells or closes the business,” which had not occurred, he noted. , At the time of trial, it was three years since Hartnett’s termination. Hartnett never found other full-time employment and had to sell her house and move from California to Florida. She was previously making about $145,000 in her chief executive officer position. She claimed she would have received about $300,000 from the severance package. She claimed over $1 million in economic loss through retirement. Hartnett’s psychology expert diagnosed her with major depression. The defense’s psychiatry expert examined Hartnett and opined that she was understandably upset by her termination but did not suffer from any diagnosable disorder. Defense counsel also noted that Hartnett never sought any psychiatric treatment before being sent to the plaintiff’s retained expert.