In 2014, plaintiff Stephen Meiche, 53, a firefighter III/frontline diver for the Los Angeles Fire Department, was allegedly subjected to adverse employment actions by other members of his fire station. Meiche was assigned to Fire Station 49’s Marine Division, which was under the authority of Battalion 6 of the LAFD. In 2013, he was appointed to the Dive Safety Board, which was allegedly tasked with managing the LAFD’s Dive Program as well as all incoming federal grant funding designated for equipment purchase and diver training. However, in early 2014, Meiche complained about activities of the Dive Safety Board. He claimed that shortly thereafter, his duties on the Dive Safety Board were taken away, he was ostracized by other Dive Safety Board members, and he was subjected to adverse employment action by members at Fire Station 49. As a result, in September 2014, Meiche went to the fire chief at Battalion 6 and complained that he was subjected to a hostile work environment at Station 49. The chief then had an internal complaint initiated with the Professional Standards Division. Meiche provided the investigators with an explanation of his disclosures, including alleged federal grant equipment destruction, fraud, waste, and abuse of grant funding by members of the department’s Dive Program. He also provided the investigators with evidence of the alleged resulting retaliation he suffered. The information was provided in written documentation and over a series of in-person interviews. However, Meiche claimed the investigation was closed, and no action was taken. Meiche claimed that after the department failed to move the offending members out of Fire Station 49, he was forced to request a transfer to another station and, in March 2015, he moved to a different station, where he is still employed as a firefighter III/frontline diver. Meiche sued the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Fire Department. He alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted whistleblower retaliation, in violation of Labor Code §1102.5. Defense counsel argued that Meiche did not engage in any whistleblowing activity and that Meiche was not subjected to any adverse employment action. Counsel contended that Meiche was a serial complainer who had general complaints about the activities of the Dive Board and that only after infighting with the other members, did Meiche frame his complaints as fraud, waste and abuse. Counsel also contended that Meiche’s participation in the investigation waned after his preliminary disclosure to the investigators and that as a result, the department was forced to close its investigation into Meiche’s complaints of whistleblower retaliation without taking any action, but proceeded to investigate internal cross-complaints that had been made by others against Meiche as a result of his whistleblower complaints. However, defense counsel noted that the investigations filed against Meiche were resolved in Meiche’s favor and had been closed and that Meiche suffered no negative performance rating from 2013 to 2016, had not been reprimanded, and had not been disciplined. In addition, defense counsel contended that the Dive Safety Board was a volunteer advisory board that had no fiduciary duties or binding authority and that any work performed in connection with the board was separate and apart from any underlying job duties. Counsel also contended that there was no compensation for being a board member and that the board was not approved by the union. Counsel further contended that in early 2015, Battalion 6 disbanded the Dive Safety Board and all of its members, and that, later that year, the battalion rebooted the program, with no one, including Meiche, excluded from participating., Meiche claimed that although he maintained his title and position as a diver, he was ostracized from the dive team, wherein his duties and responsibilities were greatly circumscribed; he was completely ignored throughout the fire house; and people began claiming he was an unsafe diver. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that claiming Meiche was an unsafe diver was a way to drive someone out of the unit entirely, as it causes others to not want to dive with him. Among other things, Meiche testified that he thought that others were just going to leave him on the bottom one day, referring to being left behind while underwater at the port. He claimed that as a result, he suffers from emotional distress, including anguish, fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shame, mortification, injured feelings, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as other unpleasant physical, mental, and emotional reactions. Meiche sought recovery for the damage to his reputation. He also sought recovery of emotional distress damages and other non-economic damages. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Meiche $6 million in total damages. Defense counsel contended that Meiche’s income, benefits and pension have all remained unchanged and that Meiche was not denied any bonuses. Counsel also contended Meiche had not been denied any promotion because he had not applied for one since at least 2005. Defense counsel further contended that Meiche’s plans for retirement within about five years, as he was 57 at the time of trial, were unaffected by any of the incidents. In regard to Meiche’s alleged emotional distress, defense counsel noted that Meiche testified that he “never really suffered from anxiety” and that he “manages [his] stress pretty well.” Counsel also noted that Meiche did not seek treatment from any doctor or therapist.