On Sept. 1, 2008, plaintiff Osmar Zelaya, a professional security officer, was hired as a lead field supervisor by RMI International Inc., a security services solutions provider based in Paramount. Zelaya worked on the company’s MTA account, roaming different stations to supervise security personnel. Zelaya claimed that he verbally complained to RMI and MTA about what he believed to be illegal billing on the MTA contract, but RMI denied the accusation and claimed the accusation was unfounded. Soon thereafter, on March 11, 2011, Zelaya was terminated from employment. Zelaya sued RMI International Inc., alleging the defendant’s actions constituted race discrimination, retaliation, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Prior to trial, Zelaya dismissed his claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a directed verdict was granted against his race discrimination claim. Thus, the matter continued to trial on Zelaya’s retaliation claim only. Zelaya claimed that he was labeled a whistle-blower for reporting to the MTA, as well as his supervisors at RMI, what he believed to be illegal billing on the MTA contract. Thus, he claimed that his termination was an act of retaliation in response to his complaints of improper billing. RMI claimed that Zelaya was not credible in his accounts of verbally complaining to the MTA and that his complaints were unfounded since Zelaya had no knowledge of the invoices sent to the MTA. It also claimed that Zelaya never complained about improper billing to any RMI employees prior to his termination, and that the only complaints that Zelaya did make to his supervisors were only based on operational issues regarding open security posts. In addition, RMI claimed that Zelaya was terminated for poor performance and conflicts of interest, in that it learned that Zelaya was working for a competing security company during his employment with RMI and that he was actively recruiting officers from RMI to the join the competing company., Zelaya sought recovery of damages in excess of $300,000 for his past and future lost earnings, as well as for his pain and suffering due to emotional distress that he claimed he suffered. RMI’s counsel argued that Zelaya was owed zero damages, as he was terminated for legitimate business reasons and did not suffer any emotional distress while employed by RMI.