On Sept. 29, 2011, plaintiff Todd Milan, an apprentice firefighter/paramedic, responded to a fire at the mobile home of a paraplegic who was trapped in his bed and calling for help. Milan saw that his captain was almost fully geared up, so he Milan kicked down the door and went in, believing that his captain was right behind him. Milan then grabbed the paraplegic man and moved him partway across the room before finding that the captain was not with him and that the man could not be moved further. Due to the imminent flash over of the fire, Milan was ultimately forced to leave the mobile home in order to save his own life. The paraplegic man later died, while Milan suffered third-degree burns to his hands, and burns to his face and buttocks. Milan received a written reprimand for going into the fire alone and not waiting for his captain. In March 2012, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration came in to investigate, and Milan spoke to OSHA on his own time. In the following weeks, Milan was written up and disciplined for several events. The city of Vallejo has a three-year apprenticeship program in which firefighters are required to pass 36 monthly evaluation tests, but Milan failed his 23rd evaluation and he had some performance issues. However, his daily evaluations from various captains were all good. While he was scheduled retake the test, Milan was suspended. On Nov. 1, 2012, Milan was terminated by Fire Chief Paige Meyer. Milan claimed that he was retaliated against and ultimately terminated due to his report to CAL-OSHA. Milan sued the city of Vallejo and Meyer. Milan alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, and failure to enter into an interactive process and failure to accommodate in violation of California Government Code § 12965. Meyer was ultimately dismissed from the case. Milan claimed that he had been an apprentice firefighter/paramedic for 27 months when he responded to the mobile home fire in September 2011. He claimed that his battalion chief ordered him to kick down the door and to go in, which he did, but that his captain failed to follow him. Milan alleged that he saw that his captain was almost fully geared up, so he reasonably thought his captain was right behind him, as he should have been. However, he claimed that after he received a written reprimand for going into the fire alone and not waiting for his captain, he found out that the reason the captain was not behind him was because the captain allegedly forgot his gloves. He also claimed that he learned from the reprimand that the battalion chief had denied ordering him into the building. Milan further claimed Meyer discouraged him from talking to OSHA, which was investigating the incident, and that when Meyer learned that he had spoken to OSHA on his own time, Meyer threatened his job. Milan alleged that as a result, during the following weeks, he was written up and disciplined for minor events, including some that were eight months old. In addition, Milan claimed that he was suspended within minutes of the scheduled retake of the test and terminated a few weeks later, allegedly for failing the test. Thus, Milan contended that he reported to OSHA that he had been ordered in to the fire, that his captain did not have his gloves at the time of the incident, and that the chief and battalion chief were engaged in a “cover up,” and he asserted that as a result of his report, he was retaliated against and ultimately terminated. Defense counsel contended that the captain had his gloves at the mobile home fire, but that the captain didn’t have time to put them on because Milan had already taken off into the fire on his own. Counsel also contended that the battalion chief never ordered Milan to go into the fire and that Milan entered the structure alone, without his captain and without the fire hose, contrary to his training, in an attempt to save the paraplegic. Thus, counsel contended that Milan was reprimanded for going in alone. Defense counsel further contended that after Milan returned to full duty in March 2012, Milan complained to OSHA that it was the fault of the battalion chief and the captain that he was in the burning structure alone and without a buddy, as required by OSHA regulations. However, counsel asserted that Meyer only learned of Milan’s complaints to OSHA after Milan was already suspended. Defense counsel contended that Milan was appropriately reprimanded for violating OSHA regulations by going into the fire alone, but that the reprimand had nothing to do with Milan’s termination. Instead, counsel argued that Milan’s termination was due to Milan’s failures in the apprenticeship program. Defense counsel contended that Milan had claimed that the reason for his failing the 30th evaluation was because of post-traumatic stress disorder from the fire and that as a result, Milan appealed the termination recommendation to the apprentice committee, which, in February 2013, recommended sending Milan back to the academy. Defense counsel argued that as a result, the fire chief attempted to negotiate an agreement that would send Milan back to the fire academy for further training as an accommodation, but that Milan refused. Thus, counsel argued that the city did engage in the interactive process, but that Milan failed to participate, and that the city offered a reasonable accommodation, which Milan rejected. Counsel further contended that since the further training would be necessary for Milan to be a safe firefighter, his refusal to accept the accommodation resulted in his termination., Milan began his three-year apprenticeship with the city of Vallejo in June 2009. He alleged he fulfilled his dream of being a firefighter later in life, and was 41 years old when hired by the city. Milan claimed that he continues to seek employment as a firefighter, but has been unable to do so because of the termination on his record. He claimed that as a result, he is currently teaching classes to emergency medical technicians on emergency lifesaving skills and is a volunteer paramedic for the East Bay Regional Park District. Thus, Milan sought recovery for the emotional impact of the termination and the emotional impact of the loss of that dream. He also sought recovery of damages for the city’s alleged failure to accommodate his post-traumatic stress disorder that he developed due to the fire. Defense counsel contended that Milan rejected offers of reinstatement by the city in 2013 and 2014, and, instead, sued the city, claiming that he had PTSD, was not sufficiently accommodated, and was terminated in retaliation for speaking to OSHA. Defense counsel also contended that Milan’s damages should have been limited by the offer of reinstatement given to him in the midst of litigation and also by subsequent “after acquired evidence,” which counsel argued would have then terminated Milan, had he been employed.