On July 24, 2012, plaintiff Yowan Yang, 47, an information technology technician, was involved in a heated workplace disagreement with Cy Tymony, who worked in the same capacity and was placed on the same team as Yang. During the disagreement about moving cubicles, Tymony, who worked at a cubicle 4-feet away, threatened to kill Yang, choked Yang, and destroyed Yang’s cubicle by punching its walls to the ground. In response, their employer, ActioNet Inc. terminated the employment of both Yang and Tymony, without performing an investigation of the incident. Yang sued ActioNet Inc. and L-3 National Security Solutions Inc., alleging wrongful termination. Yang began his employment with L-3 National Security Solutions, a federal contractor, providing technical support to the Federal Aviation Administration, in September 2008. ActioNet took over the contract in April 2010 and employed Yang as an information technology technician. As a result, L-3 National Security Solutions was ultimately dismissed from the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Yang’s employment history included consistent strong performance reviews and merit raises, including a raise just two months prior to his termination. Counsel noted that FAA Special Agents came to the scene and prepared a preliminary report regarding the incident after speaking with witnesses. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that despite receiving an investigation report from the investigators two days after the incident, which revealed that Yang was a “complete victim,” no corrective action was taken by ActioNet to investigate the incident further. Counsel also contended that ActioNet failed to communicate with Yang the findings of the investigation and failed to rehire Yang after the investigation found Yang to be the “victim.” Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that ActioNet ignored Yang’s pleas for an explanation as to why he was terminated, as well as ignored his request for reinstatement. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Yang was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy, since Yang was fired because of an incident in which he was the victim of workplace violence. Counsel also argued that Tymony was acting in the course and scope of employment when he threatened and assaulted Yang and that ActioNet was liable based on vicarious liability, which included violations for Civil Code § 43 (right of protection from bodily restraint or harm) and Civil Code § 52.1 (interference with rights through threats, intimidation and coercion). Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the FAA did not request that Yang be taken off the contract and that the FAA investigative report exonerated Yang. Counsel further argued that ActioNet was negligent because other employees previously complained about Tymony’s aggressive behavior, but ActioNet did not investigate the complaints of workplace violence. ActioNet’s counsel argued that ActioNet fired Yang because of his role in provoking the altercation and for Yang’s conduct during the altercation. Counsel also contended that the FAA took Yang off the contract and ActioNet had no other place to employee Yang. Thus, counsel argued that ActioNet was not negligent or liable for the incident and that, if ActioNet was negligent, than Yang was negligent too., Yang claimed that his termination caused him great anxiety and depression. He was ultimately diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that ActioNet’s “for cause” termination of Yang prevented Yang from obtaining comparable employment. Counsel contended that as a result, Yang was forced to accept a position as an in-home support service worker. Thus, Yang sought recovery of $193,539 in past lost earnings, $837,359 in future lost earnings, and an unspecified amount of damages for his past and future emotional pain and suffering. ActioNet’s counsel noted that Yang did not seek treatment for his alleged major depressive disorder. Counsel also contended that Yang failed to mitigate his damages, in that Yang did not use his best efforts to find comparable employment.