In September 2008, plaintiff Pedro Torres, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, testified on behalf of fellow LAPD Officer Robert Hill, who had sued the city of Los Angeles due to alleged racial harassment. Torres corroborated Hill’s testimony that a certain station supervisor made several racist comments about Latinos and African Americans, and the lawsuit resulted in a multi-million-dollar verdict for Hill. Torres claimed that leading up to, at the time of, and after the trial, he was subjected to various forms of retaliation within the department as a result of his support of Hill. He alleged the retaliation included hearings, suspensions and shift changes. Prior to testifying at Hill’s trial, Torres was relieved of duty, pending the Board of Rights hearing. The city of Los Angeles claimed that Torres was the subject of a criminal investigation since as early as 2003, for his alleged involvement in a drug trafficking ring. In October 2006, the LAPD’s Internal Affairs decided to stop pursuing most of the criminal investigation, and the matter became an administrative investigation into Torres. The city claimed that based on the Internal Affairs’ investigation, the administrative complaint was adjudicated with a recommendation that Torres be sent to a Board of Rights to determine the appropriate penalty. The city further claimed that pursuant to LAPD practice, Torres was relieved of duty, which included the removal of his gun, badge and identification. The Board of Rights hearing was held on Aug. 26, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearing, the charges against Torres were dropped. Torres claimed that relieving him of duty pending the Board of Rights hearing was one of the forms of retaliation for his deposition and inevitable testimony in support of Hill. Torres claimed that the city’s retaliation against him resulted in his constructive discharge from the LAPD in 2010. Torres then officially retired in 2011 due to an inability to continue performing his duties as a police officer. In 2010, Torres sued the city of Los Angeles, alleging that the city’s actions constituted retaliation, resulting in his constructive discharge. Torres claimed that as a result of testifying on behalf of Hill in 2008, as well as participating in the deposition and events leading up to Hill’s trial, the LAPD retaliated against him to the point of developing anxiety, forcing his inevitable retirement. He alleged that one of the first forms of retaliation was being relieved of duty pending the Board of Rights hearing in Aug. 26, 2008, which he claimed was an adverse action for being identified as a witness for Hill, since he hadn’t yet testified. Thus, he claimed that he was improperly sent home for an extended period of time in February 2008, with his police powers removed, since the Board of Rights hearing ultimately did not result in his termination. In addition, Torres claimed that in April 2008, the city decided to suspend him for his involvement in a shooting, which occurred approximately one year earlier and resulted in him saving a woman’s life. (The suspension was scheduled to take place in 2009.) Torres contended that all of these adverse actions against him ultimately led to his constructive discharge in 2010. Defense counsel argued that the city of Los Angeles was immune, based on governmental immunities found in California statutes. Counsel contended that the five-day suspension for the shooting was de minimis and, thus, not actionable. Defense counsel also argued that constructive discharge cannot be alleged against a government entity, even as an adverse action, because it is contrary to case law. In the alternative, the city claimed that although it recognized that Torres’ efforts contributed to saving a kidnap victim, the shooting itself was out of policy, leading to the suspension. It also claimed that it scheduled the suspension for 2009, but that Torres never returned to work after the hearing and was on medical leave by 2009. The city also claimed that Torres failed to prove any causal nexus between his status as an identified supporter of Hill and any of the alleged adverse actions, and that nothing happened to Torres after late February 2008 because he never returned to work., The plaintiff’s expert psychologist testified that severe anxiety made Torres unable to perform the duties of an LAPD officer. As a result, Torres claimed he officially retired from police work in 2011, when he would have worked for another 33 years. Thus, Torres sought recovery of $211,021 in damages for his past loss of earnings, $1,670,997 in damages for his future loss of earnings and pension, and $1 million in damages for his pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Torres quit the LAPD on his own, and was owed zero damages. Counsel further argued that there was no credible evidence that Torres would have worked up to 33 years with the LAPD.