In 2004, plaintiff Thomas Gonzales, a part-time independent investigator with the Citizen Police Complaint Commission, learned that a former police officer was promoted to become his supervisor. He claimed that, thereafter, there appeared to be a lack of independence between the Citizen Police Complaint Commission and the police force that it was charged with investigating. The Citizen Police Complaint Commission was initially established in 1990 by a vote of the citizens of Long Beach after a particularly violent racial profiling and beating incident allegedly occurred by the Long Beach Police Department. The Charter amendment that established the Commission empowered it to receive and independently investigate citizen complaints of misconduct against Long Beach Police Officers. Special review emphasis was placed on allegations of excessive force and false arrest, as well as complaints with racial or sexual overtones. However, after a former police officer became Gonzales’ supervisor, Gonzales noted a series of changes made in his operation of the Citizen Police Complaint Commission that he claimed ultimately resulted in discrimination against the Hispanic community. As a result, Gonzales made a series of complaints to his new supervisor and others up the chain of command, alleging that the complaints filed by Hispanics against the Long Beach Police Department were not being properly or “independently” investigated pursuant to the mandate of the City Charter. He claimed that Hispanic citizens’ complaints were being summarily marked “no further action,” altered by the police department and his new supervisor, and, sometimes, entirely discarded. He claimed that these actions prevented the serious complaints contemplated by the Charter from being honestly evaluated by the Commission. In September 2006, Gonzales, who was in his 60s, was terminated from his position. He was told that the results of an internal investigation found that he and his wife, a paralegal, were not being truthful when engaging in a for-profit contact with a citizen that they met while the citizen was filing a complaint with the Citizen Police Complaint Commission through Gonzales. However, Gonzales claimed that his termination was due to his complaints about discrimination against the Hispanic community. Gonzales sued the city of Long Beach and the Citizen Police Complaint Commission, alleging race discrimination, a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, failure to accommodate, violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, and retaliation. The matter ultimately continued to trial on Gonzales’ retaliation claim under FEHA only, as all his other claims were dismissed via summary judgment. Gonzales claimed that he was terminated from his independent investigator position after six years of applauded service, just after reaching the age of 60. He alleged that his termination was in retaliation for his complaints of illegal conduct made 18 months prior. Gonzales claimed that the city initially gave no reason for his termination, but later disclosed in litigation that Gonzales was terminated for an alleged conflict of interest and for allegedly lying during an internal investigation into a contractual relationship involving Gonzales’ wife, a paralegal, who engaged in providing for profit legal services to a citizen in an unrelated case against a car company. Gonzales had first met the citizen when the citizen filed a complaint with the Citizen Police Complaint Commission, and the citizen later became a member of the League of United Latin American Citizens, of which Gonzales was president. Gonzales claimed that neither he nor his wife received any compensation for the wife’s provision of services, which was done during the course of her services within League of United Latin American Citizens. The city of Long Beach denied Gonzales’ claims and alleged it had a legitimate business reason for terminating him. Defense counsel argued that Gonzales’ claim of retaliation was not permissible under FEHA because citizens are not employees of the city and because the city denied there was any alleged retaliation. Counsel contended that an investigation was done into the contractual relationship between Gonzales’ wife and a citizen whom she provided legal services for, and it was determined that Gonzales and his wife were not being truthful. Thus, defense counsel contended that due to the untrue statements and the violation of the City Code of Ethics, Gonzales was terminated form his position., Gonzales was terminated from his position in September 2006, resulting in a loss of earnings. He also claimed the retaliation caused him to suffer emotional distress. Thus, Gonzales sought recovery of damages for his loss of earnings since the date of termination and damages for his emotional distress, the amount of which he left to be determined by the jury.