In July 2011, plaintiff John Hougan, 46, a patrol officer for the City of Newport Beach Police Department, was terminated from his position. Hougan claimed that he was retaliated against for testifying in another sergeant’s workplace harassment and retaliation trial, resulting in workplace harassment, a demotion, and, ultimately, his termination. Hougan sued his employer, the city of Newport Beach (which was at one time erroneously named as the City of Newport Beach Police Department). Hougan alleged that the city’s actions constituted workplace harassment, creation of a hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Hougan worked as a police officer for the city of Newport Beach since 1990 and he eventually reached the position of sergeant in 2005. However, he was later demoted to patrol officer in 2010. Hougan claimed that after he testified at another sergeant’s workplace harassment and retaliation trial in October 2008, he was subjected to harassment and retaliation, and was otherwise ostracized and ignored by other city employees. Hougan was later demoted in 2010, after he was investigated by internal affairs and it was discovered that he spent a large amount of time viewing graphic and sexually explicit pornography on a work computer while on duty. Hougan admitted to the conduct, but claimed that over the years, dozens of cops had been caught misusing police department computers–some far worse than his breach–without suffering any meaningful punishment. However, he was punished by being demoted from sergeant to officer, which resulted in about a 20 percent annual pay loss. Thus, Hougan claimed that the demotion was really a retaliation for his prior testimony in the other sergeant’s case. In addition, he claimed that he was told that he was going to be the subject of another internal affairs investigation in February 2011 due to him allegedly running over a seagull while patrolling on the beach. Hougan contended that although he was cleared of the bird incident, he was ultimately terminated five months later for allegedly not living up to the department’s ethical standards. He further contended that even after his termination, the police department continued to retaliate for his prior testimony in the other sergeant’s trial by retaliating against his wife, a former community services officer and, most recently, a dispatcher, and by also terminating her from her position. (Editor’s Note: Hougan’s wife brought a separate action against the city, see VerdictSearch’s report on Christine Hougan v. City of Newport Beach Police Department, et al.) Defense counsel asserted that John Hougan’s prior testimony in another sergeant’s case had nothing to do with his demotion or termination. Counsel contended that Hougan admitted that he repeatedly looked at pornography on a work computer while on duty and that Hougan was appropriately demoted for his inappropriate conduct. Counsel also contended that even after being demoted and told to stop viewing pornography while on duty, Hougan, nevertheless, continued to view graphic and sexually explicit material on a work computer while on duty and that when the police chief questioned Hougan about the continued behavior in 2010, he lied about it. Thus, defense counsel asserted that Hougan was fired for violating a direct order to not look at pornography while on duty and for providing an allegedly misleading or false statement to the chief. In addition, counsel asserted that any actions taken toward Hougan’s wife, including her termination, had nothing to do with Hougan’s actions., Hougan claimed sought recovery of past and future loss of earnings due to his demotion and termination. He also claimed that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the actions taken against him and that he required treatment with a counselor. Thus, Hougan also sought recovery of emotional distress damages.