In 2012, plaintiff Christine Hougan, 43, a police dispatcher for the City of Newport Beach Police Department, was terminated from her position. Hougan claimed that she was fired in retaliation for confronting Chief Jay Johnson about sexually harassing statements that he had allegedly made and for her behavior related to an incident that aggravated her pre-existing emotional disorder. She also claimed that she was retaliated against due to her husband, then a sergeant with the City of Newport Beach Police Department, testifying in another sergeant’s case in October 2008. Hougan sued Chief Johnson and his employer, the city of Newport Beach (which was initially erroneously sued as the City of Newport Beach Police Department). Hougan alleged that Johnson’s actions constituted sexual harassment and that the actions of Johnson and the city constituted retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The sexual harassment claim against Johnson was dismissed on the first day of trial, and the city of Newport Beach was ultimately dismissed from the case during trial. Thus, the matter continued with Hougan’s retaliation claim against Johnson. Hougan alleged that she was previously diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder following the rape and murder of her mother, whom she had found dead many years before. Thus, she claimed that she became visibly upset by a 911 call about a young boy who found his mother unresponsive. She alleged that although her co-workers knew of her PTSD diagnosis, she was still criticized for her behavior. She also claimed that 90 minutes after she became upset, she got into a profanity-laced conflict with a co-worker after he made a sarcastic remark about her tendency to criticize Johnson. Hougan alleged that her response to the sarcastic remark became heated due to her PTSD and the prior 911 call, but that despite her co-workers knowing about her condition, she was still “written up” for her reaction. Hougan also claimed that she was criticized for confronting Johnson over alleged “wife swapping” statements that he had made about her at a civil service board hearing regarding her husband’s firing. She alleged that since the civil service board hearing was private, part of the reason she was fired was for discussing Johnson’s offensive comments (which were made at the private conference) with a friend. However, she claimed that other officers who had committed worse rules violations were not fired, and even received promotions. In addition, Hougan claimed that she was retaliated against based statements her husband made during his testimony for another sergeant’s case in October 2008. Defense counsel contended that a close friend of Hougan’s led an internal investigation that resulted in Hougan’s dismissal in 2012. Thus, counsel contended that the decision to terminate Hougan was based on 11 rules violations, any one of which could justify her termination. Defense counsel also contended that Hougan was fired, in part, for her use of her work email to insult Johnson and lash out at her husband with profanity. In addition, counsel contended that Hougan was fired for insubordination due to inappropriate comments that she made to the chief (Johnson) and inappropriate emails concerning Johnson., Hougan sought recovery of past and future loss of earnings. She also sought recovery of emotional distress damages, for which she allegedly required treatment with a counselor. In addition, Hougan sought recovery of punitive damages against Chief Johnson.