On Nov. 11, 2013, plaintiff Yolanda Vega, an accounts receivable clerk in her 40s, was terminated from her position at Hydraulics International Inc., located in Chatsworth. Vega claimed that she was fired because her husband, who was also an employee of Hydraulics International, was part of a class action lawsuit against the company. Vega sued Hydraulics International, alleging that the defendant’s actions constituted wrongful termination in violation of public policy underlying California Labor Code § 1102.5. Vega, a 15-year employee of the company, claimed that she was terminated in retaliation for her husband’s participation in a class action lawsuit against Hydraulics International in August 2013. (That lawsuit was dismissed.) Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Vega was discharged three months after Vega’s husband became involved in a legal action against the company. Counsel contended that Vega had received outstanding performance reviews (95 out of 100) and that Vega had no prior warnings or discipline. Counsel also contended that Vega had been promoted to assistant controller and that Vega had received salary increases and bonuses over the years. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that one month after Hydraulics International filed its notice of appearance in the class action lawsuit that was filed by Vega’s husband, Vega received her first and only warning. Thus, counsel argued that Vega was terminated 10 business days after receiving the warning, which counsel argued was a pretext for firing Vega. Defense counsel argued that Vega was terminated due to poor performance. Counsel contended that shortly after Vega was given a written warning as to her performance, Vega reacted by taking sick leave and vacation time, in addition to emptying out her personal belongings from her workspace. Thus, defense counsel argued that Vega’s pre-existing poor job performance and reaction to the warning were the reasons that she was terminated. Defense counsel moved for summary judgment, arguing that California Labor Code § 1102.5, as written in 2013, did not support the plaintiff’s theory. However, Judge Mel Recana denied defense counsel’s motion, and the Court of Appeals denied a writ on the issue., Vega sought recovery of future economic damages based on a 10-year projection of lost earnings.