On Oct. 20, 2010, plaintiff Thomas Correa, a Hispanic police officer with the City of San Jose Police Department, went with his team to the department’s “active shooter” training module. Earlier that month, Correa was assigned to the San Jose Airport Division, where he worked on a team of four to six officers that were directly supervised by Sergeant Kim Hudson. Each team at the airport worked a 10-hour, four-day shift, and one day a week, usually on a Wednesday, the teams overlapped, which meant there was double coverage because officers on both teams reported for duty. As a result, whenever department training was necessary or required, one team would use the double-coverage day as the day to complete the training because the other team fully covered the airport. Hudson’s team, which included Correa, subsequently went to the department’s “active shooter” training module on one of those double-coverage days. Instead of reporting at 3 p.m. on Oct. 20, 2010, as the officers would have for their regular swing shift, Hudson’s team reported for training at 1 p.m. Hudson ordered her team to wear their tactical uniform (also called “battle dress uniform,” or “BDU’s”,) as the uniform of the day, but, instead, Correa wore his “class A” uniform. When Hudson asked why he wasn’t in his BDU’s, he responded, “They’re at home,” and walked away. After the formal training module, Hudson’s team had to qualify at the shooting range. As a result, Hudson’s team decided that after they were done at the shooting range, they would meet at a pizza restaurant for their lunch break. However, since the officers completed their shooting requirements at different times, they did not arrive at the restaurant together. As a result, when Correa reported to the restaurant, Hudson had not yet arrived. Correa ultimately decided not to wait and was pulling out of the restaurant’s driveway when Hudson arrived. As he drove by Hudson, Correa, through his car window, told Hudson that he was hungry and couldn’t wait and that he was going to find something to eat. Hudson allegedly thought that Correa was going return to the group after he ate, but when he didn’t, Hudson had an officer on her team call to find out where Correa was. She learned that Correa was at the airport, attempting to take on a shift for an officer who reported to Sergeant Eric Phan, who supervised a different team at the airport. Hudson subsequently ordered Correa to report back to her and the rest of the team to complete training, but Correa refused and left a phone message for Hudson, accusing Hudson and the rest of the team of timecard fraud, and claiming he would not commit timecard fraud. As a result, Phan got involved and persuaded Hudson to allow Correa to take the shift. Hudson agreed, but required Correa to leave at 11 p.m., which meant Correa could not work until 1 a.m., the end of the absent officer’s shift. On Oct. 24, 2010, which was Hudson’s next work day, Hudson briefed her team at the beginning of their shift and then called Correa into her office to discuss what happened four days earlier. However, Correa refused to go into Hudson’s office without union representation or a witness. As a result, the day shift supervisor, Sergeant Joe Hernandez, was invited to be a witness. During the meeting an argument broke out and Correa attempted to walk away, but Hudson reached for Correa’s duty belt to stop him. Hernandez and other officers from Hudson’s team then had to intervene. Hernandez had Hudson go to her office and call their supervisor, Lieutenant Michael Sullivan. When Sullivan arrived, he sent Correa home for the day, with pay, and ordered him to return the following day for a meeting to discuss what had occurred. The next day, Correa met with Sullivan and Deputy Chief David Cavallaro in Cavallaro’s office. At the conclusion of the meeting, Cavallaro and Sullivan directed Correa to take time off, with pay, and meet with a counselor. When Correa returned to work, after his paid time off and meeting with a counselor, he was assigned to the midnight shift at the airport under Phan’s supervision. A short time later, Correa was reassigned to report to Lieutenant Paul Francois. Correa then made a complaint against Hudson to the police department’s Internal Affairs Division. However, Correa was referred to a disciplinary review panel, which consisted of the Internal Affairs commander and individuals in Correa’s chain of command up to the Chief of Police. Correa ultimately retired on May 14, 2011. Correa sued Hudson; Hudson’s supervisor, Sullivan; and their employers, the city of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department. Correa alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted race discrimination, retaliation, and violations of his constitutional and civil rights for exercising his right as a private citizen to exercise his freedom of speech. Correa claimed that Hudson and the other officers on Hudson’s team planned to commit timecard fraud by meeting at a pizza restaurant for their lunch break on Oct. 20, 2010, and then going home before the end of their shift. He alleged that rather than go along with the team, he attempted to take on a shift for an officer with a different team at the airport, which was supervised by Phan, but that when Hudson found out, she ordered him back to the restaurant and attempted to prevent him from taking the shift. Correa claimed that as a result, Phan had to intervene, but that Hudson still punished him by making him leave work early, at 11 p.m., rather than at the end of the absent officer’s shift, at 1 a.m. He alleged that Hudson and other officers also branded him as a “snitch” after he refused to go along with their plans to not return to work after qualifying at the shooting range and that officers threatened to not cover him in times of danger. He further alleged that Hudson attempted to grab him during the meeting on Oct. 24, 2010, and that, thereafter, he was made to take time off from work, was reassigned twice, and was investigated by Internal Affairs. Correa claimed that he was ultimately forced to retire early on May 14, 2011. Hudson claimed that Correa’s conduct was insubordinate on Oct. 20, 2010. Specifically, she claimed that she ordered her team to wear their tactical uniform that day, but that Correa was the only one on the team who wore his “class A” uniform and that when asked why he wasn’t in the proper uniform, Correa simply responded, “They’re at home,” and walked away. She also claimed that after lunch, she ordered Correa to report back to her and the rest of the team to complete training, but that Correa refused and disobeyed her direct order. Hudson also denied the timecard fraud allegation, claiming that she had planned to have her team complete their shift by discussing strategies to address a weakness in airport security that was revealed by a recent occurrence where two armed, uniformed individuals from Lawrence Livermore Lab entered the airport with displayed weapons and without a security response. She claimed that the plan was for her team to meet at a pizza restaurant for their lunch break after they were done at the shooting range and that they would discuss strategies there, but that Correa did not wait at the restaurant for her to arrive. Hudson alleged that since she saw Correa pulling out of the restaurant’s driveway and was told that he was going to find something to eat, she believed that Correa would return to the group after he ate, but that he did not and disobeyed her direct order. Defense counsel contended that although Hudson required Correa to leave the shift he was covering at 11 p.m., rather than at 1 a.m., it was not a punishment. Counsel contended that Hudson’s team reported for training at 1 p.m., instead of their regular swing shift start time of 3 p.m., and that the early start meant their 10-hour shift ended at 11 p.m. Counsel argued that as a result, Correa could not work to the end of the absent officer’s shift at 1 a.m. because overtime at the airport was not authorized on Wednesdays due to budget constraints, per Sullivan’s prior orders. Defense counsel also contended that on Oct. 24, 2010, Hudson called Correa into her office to discuss Correa’s behavior and refusal to follow her orders four days earlier, and to talk to Correa to find out “what was going on with him.” However, Correa refused to go into Hudson’s office, claiming that she had “already [been] punished” and would not meet with her without union representation or a witness. Defense counsel contended that once they did meet, Correa responded in a hostile manner by yelling, cursing, and saying he was going to go to his patrol assignment at the airport for the day. Counsel asserted that Correa’s outburst alarmed Hudson to the point that she believed Correa should not be allowed to go out in public on patrol in his then existing mental state and that as Correa walked away, Hudson reached for Correa’s duty belt to stop him. However, defense counsel contended that Correa turned and started screaming, causing Hernandez and other officers to intervene. Defense counsel argued that Hernandez acted appropriately by having Hudson get her supervisor involved. Counsel contended that when Sullivan arrived, he sent Correa home for the day, with pay, and ordered him to return the following day for a meeting to discuss what had influenced his behavior the previous day and that at the conclusion of the meeting the next day, Correa was directed to take time off, with pay, and meet with a counselor. Defense counsel argued that Correa was satisfied with the outcome of the meeting and felt he had been treated fairly and that Correa also made no complaint about either of the times he was reassigned. Counsel contended that Correa was transferred the second time because Hudson had complained that Correa’s continuing behavior created a hostile work environment and that this complaint caused Internal Affairs to investigate Correa’s conduct. Thus, defense counsel argued that Correa only made his complaint about Hudson to Internal Affairs in February 2011, after Correa had learned Hudson’s own hostile work environment complaint. As a result, defense counsel argued that Correa was not discriminated or retaliated against., Correa, who started work for the police department in July 1984 and was eligible to retire since 2008, claimed that he was forced to retire in May 2011. He claimed that the disciplinary process was completely one-sided, so he decided to retire before any discipline could be imposed. He alleged that he feared that he was being railroaded and that any adverse findings would hurt his chances to get law enforcement jobs after his retirement. In addition, Correa claimed that he had to leave because once labeled as a “snitch,” fairly or unfairly, other officers in a dangerous situation might not cover his back, as he had witnessed happen during his years on the force for other allegedly disliked, harassed officers. Plaintiff’s counsel presented expert testimony from a retired police officer, who was a professor and had written the Internal Affairs Manual at the San Jose Police Department, where he had headed up the Internal Affairs Division. The expert testified that the department investigation of Correa was a “railroad” job that was not timely, fair, or thorough and that the investigating officer had a conflict of interest because he was one of the people who had encouraged the alleged timecard fraud. He also testified that the department’s investigation of Hudson’s alleged battery and harassment of Correa was a “whitewash,” since there was only one 10-minute interview of Hudson, consisting mostly of “softball” leading questions, and that it was delayed so long that, under the law, no discipline could be imposed even if findings of intentional battery or harassment were made. Thus, Correa sought recovery of emotional distress damages and for the retirement benefits that he lost from his forced early retirement. Defense counsel contended that the defendants never imposed, and that Correa never received, discipline of any kind as a result of Correa’s alleged conduct on Oct. 20, 2010 or Oct. 24, 2010, or as a result of Correa’s alleged behavior toward Hudson.