On Feb. 28, 2013, plaintiff Edmund Sotelo, the City Manager of Oxnard for 15 years, learned that the City Council allowed his employment contract to expire and declined his request for a new contract. Sotelo claimed that the reason his contract was not renewed was because he uncovered fraud and corruption within the city and because he participated in a Ventura County District Attorney investigation into the city. Sotelo sued the city of Oxnard. Sotelo alleged that the city retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Labor Code § 1102.5, which provides protection to whistleblowers. He also alleged that the city failed to prevent retaliation in violation of FEHA and that the city’s actions constituted a breach of contract. Sotelo acknowledged that he was an at-will employee who could have been terminated at any time during his contract with or without cause, but noted that he remained employed by the city for 15 years. He also acknowledged that the City Council placed him on administrative leave for the final 13 months of his employment contract after he refused to participate in the performance evaluation process. However, Sotelo claimed that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower because he participated in the D.A. investigation. He also claimed that the city’s former mayor conducted the performance evaluation process as pretext to retaliate against him for his participation in the investigation, and for various personnel decisions, including the hiring of the city’s chief of police. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the performance evaluation process was lengthy and contentious and that the city’s own internal report confirmed that Sotelo’s claims of retaliation were founded. However, counsel noted that the report and conclusions of the city’s investigator were excluded from trial. Defense counsel argued that Sotelo was not a whistleblower because he was a subject of the D.A. investigation and had a duty to cooperate as the city manager. Counsel also argued that the city had legitimate and non-retaliatory reasons for placing Sotelo on leave and declining to award him new contract. Defense counsel contended that those reasons included findings in the D.A. report, which noted that Sotelo had failed to report gifts from companies doing business with the city and that Sotelo had failed to timely repay a loan from the city., Sotelo sought recovery of $2.2 million in damages against the city, which included the value of another five-year contract, as well as emotional distress damages.