In August and September 2010, plaintiff Brent Arave, a Mormon and a director-level employee for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., was notified that his company was conducting an employee satisfaction survey. Directors, such as Arave, were encouraged to identify challenges revealed by the survey and were expected to prepare a survey “action plan” (what would be done about the challenges) and present this action plan to the employees that the directors led. Arave’s survey report contained comments complaining about management engaging in favoritism based on religion, among other things. The comments suggested that there was frustration at Arave for recruiting, hiring and helping Mormons, more than others. Arave was first told about these comments by his supervisor, Joseph Holsinger, in January 2011. He subsequently told Holsinger that the comments were “false” and that he did not engage in favoritism. Arave also complained to Holsinger and a manager in the human resources department, Katherine Anderson, that the comments appeared to be from one or two employees who utilized the anonymous survey to attack him because of his religious beliefs and practices. He claimed the comments were offensive toward him, and were “discriminatory and harassing.” Arave was then told by Holsinger that even if the comments were inaccurate, he needed to address the perception of favoritism. Arave initially agreed, but eventually refused to do so and sent a complaint letter to Merrill Lynch and its parent company, Bank of America Corp., in March 2011. He ultimately resigned from his position later that month. Arave sued Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Bank of America Corp.; Holsinger; and Anderson. Arave alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted religious discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful discharge, amongst other things. Arave claimed that the comments made during the anonymous survey were made by one or two antagonistic and bigoted employees, but that Holsinger and Anderson ignored his complaints about the religious comments. He claimed that, instead, Holsinger demanded that he “apologize” for his religion and was requiring him to “change his Mormon ways.” Arave claimed that he initially agreed to apologize to his office, but when he ultimately decided not to, Holsinger and Anderson continued to harass him and demand that he make a public apology. He alleged that as a result, he filed a formal complaint about them, but information about the complaint and his identity were both revealed to Holsinger and Anderson, causing the harassment to escalate to the point where he felt he had to resign. Holsinger and Anderson claimed that after Arave complained to them about the comments made during the survey, Holsinger told Arave that even if the comments were inaccurate, he needed to address the perception of favoritism and needed to be more transparent about his management practices, such as hiring and promotions, so that people would not assume favoritism. Holsinger claimed that as a result, he told Arave to incorporate a message addressing the perception of religious favoritism into his survey action plan. Thus, Holsinger and Anderson claimed that Arave was never asked to “apologize” for his religion nor was he told to “change his Mormon ways.” Rather, they claimed Arave was expected to show leadership and sensitivity by addressing the survey comments and helping dispel the perception that he was engaging in religious favoritism. In addition, Holsinger and Anderson claimed that Arave resigned shortly after Bank of America/Merrill Lynch initiated an investigation into Arave’s March 2011 complaint letter., Arave was in charge of over 150 employees in five offices in the Southern California desert area (the Desert Inland Complex). He had been the Director for the Desert Inland Complex for over a decade and an employee of Merrill Lynch for over 25 years. However, Arave left Merrill Lynch on March 29, 2011. Thus, Arave sought recovery of unpaid wages, payment for unused vacation time, punitive damages, damages for pain and suffering, and costs of bringing the suit, as well as attorney fees.