In 2011, plaintiff Byford (Peter) Whittingham, a captain of the Los Angeles Police Department, was not advanced to a “captain 3” position. He was again passed over for promotion the next year, as well as every year until mid-2014. Whittingham claimed that he was not advanced to a “captain 3” position due to his complaints of racial bias within the LAPD and due to his refusal to violate officers’ rights with his decisions as an administrative disciplinary panel member. Whittingham sued his employer, the city of Los Angeles. He alleged that the city’s actions constituted retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5. Whittingham claimed that he was passed over for a “captain 3” position on multiple occasions because of his activism within LAPD and in the community. He alleged that he began “speaking out” in 1995 and continued doing so for years thereafter. He also alleged that he had been a captain since 2009 and that other captains were promoted, despite him being more qualified than those who were promoted. Thus, Whittingham claimed that he was retaliated against for reporting alleged racial discrimination by the LAPD against another officer and for refusing to abide by an allegedly illegal order to discharge officers at Board of Rights hearings (LAPD disciplinary hearings), regardless of guilt. He claimed that as a result the city refused to promote him to a “captain 3” position, while other less-qualified captains were promoted. The city’s counsel asserted that Whittingham did not complain about any alleged racial discrimination by the LAPD against another officer and that Whittingham failed to disclose any information that he reasonably believed were violations of law. Counsel also asserted that no illegal orders were given with regard to police officer discipline and that there were legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for which other captains were promoted instead of Whittingham. Specifically, defense counsel contended that the LAPD and the chief of police legitimately selected the other captains for promotion ahead of Whittingham because they were better suited for those positions. Counsel also contended that the selections made by the chief are made for legitimate business reasons and had nothing to do with any complaints made by Whittingham. Defense counsel further contended that the selections for advancements were based upon the chief’s assessment of training and experience and that each “captain I” subject to advancement was highly qualified. In addition, counsel contended that the selection process for advancement was highly competitive and that Whittingham was, in fact, promoted to a higher captain position, “captain 2,” in June 2014., Whittingham claimed that as a result of being passed over for promotion, he suffered economic damages in the amount of $500,000 and emotional distress damages in the amount of $5 million. Whittingham alleged that he cried himself to sleep at night because he was not receiving advancements and that he treated with at least two psychiatrists for the stress he suffered as a result of his emotional distress.