On March 13, 2015, plaintiff Harris Khan, a sales manager at Infor, a software company, was terminated from his position. Khan claimed that he was fired because he supported the complaint of a former employee, who claimed that he was entitled to a commission after he left the company. The commission was paid to another salesperson who allegedly made and closed the sale. Khan sued Infor (US) Inc. and vice president of finance Chris McDade. Khan alleged that he was wrongfully terminated and that Infor’s actions constituted whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5. He also alleged that Infor failed to pay him the appropriate rates for overtime and meal periods and that McDade defamed him. Khan filed his claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. Khan ultimately dismissed his defamation claim against McDade, and dismissed his overtime and meal claims against Infor. He also amended his complaint against Infor to include claims of failure to pay wages upon termination, failure to provide a written contract for commissions, and breach of contract. However, the matter continued to the jury only on the Labor Code § 1102.5 retaliation claim and the unpaid commissions claim against Infor. Khan claimed that the salesperson who received the commission, instead of the employee who left the company, did not know the company’s products and was not entitled to make the sale. He contended that because he supported the claim of the former employee, he was fired. Infor’s counsel denied there was any basis for Khan’s alleged whistleblower complaint, as Khan admitted that he never made a complaint about anything he believed to be illegal. Counsel contended that Khan was let go as a result of the company restructuring its various sales groups and that as a result, Khan’s sales group was eliminated. Counsel also contended that the other salesperson was rightly paid the commission because she initiated, drove and closed the sale., Khan sought recovery of economic and noneconomic damages as a result of the emotional distress he allegedly suffered as a result of his termination. He also sought recovery of punitive damages, as he believed he was terminated outrageously for agreeing with the former employee.