On Aug. 15, 2018, plaintiff Dr. Bradley Novak, a licensed psychiatrist for the city and county of San Francisco’s Department of Aging and Adult Services, resigned from his position. The department told Novak’s co-workers that Novak had been fired. Novak claimed that he had refused to participate in an illegal activity, despite pressure to do so from his department. Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 14, 2018, Novak learned that co-workers were discussing his termination, even though no one had informed him that he had been fired. Novak believed his co-workers were mistaken, and he attempted to contact a social worker about it. Instead, he received an email later that day from human resources informing him that he would be no longer employed as of Aug. 24, 2018. Novak responded on Aug. 15, 2018, stating that he would prefer to submit his resignation, so as to mitigate any ill effects the termination might have on his career. However, he claimed that the department had already informed a number of people that he was terminated. Novak sued the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco County Department of Aging and Adult Services. He alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted whistleblower retaliation, defamation, and wrongful termination and/or constructive discharge. Novak claimed that he refused to participate in the illegal activity of withholding relevant information from the court when testifying in conservatorship hearings related to whether an individual met the legal standard for being conserved and that he refused to find a particular individual to be gravely disabled, despite pressure from the department to do so. He claimed that as a result, the defendants retaliated against him by terminating his employment. Novak further claimed that he first learned of his termination from co-workers, but that he initially thought it was a mistake because he had never been written up or received any negative performance feedback. He claimed that he was eventually told that he was being terminated in an email from human resources, which he received on Aug. 14, 2018, but that he was never given a reason as to why he was being fired. Novak claimed that he informed the defendants that he believed his termination was in retaliation, but that he was still never given a reason for his termination or informed of any investigation being started regarding his claims. Novak also claimed that he attempted to submit a (forced) resignation on Aug. 15, 2018, prior to the termination becoming effective, but that the defendants had already told a number of people that he was fired. Novak claimed that the defendants defamed him by notifying his co-workers about his termination before telling him that he would be terminated and despite him resigning from his position prior to the termination becoming effective., Novak claimed that because he had worked with the county for 12 years, he suffered from emotional distress as a result of the events leading to the end of his employment with the county. He also claimed he suffered a loss of wages as a result of losing his position with the county and suffered damage to his reputation that would impact his professional career as a result of the defendants telling several people that he had been fired. Novak sought recovery of lost wages, and damages for his emotional pain and suffering.