In May 2009, plaintiff William Taylor, 49, was demoted from his position as deputy police chief to captain for the city of Burbank Police Department, where he had served for 25 years. Prior to the demotion, Taylor served as deputy police chief for two years. He claimed that although he was told that his demotion was a result of restructuring of the department, he believed that his demotion was in retaliation for his complaints about alleged racial discriminate within the department. He alleged that after his demotion, an internal affairs investigation was started to look into the departments handling of a burglary. Following a second investigation, he was terminated in June 2010. Taylor sued the city of Burbank, asserting claims of retaliation and whistleblower law. Taylor alleged that his demotion was due to retaliation against him by the department. He claimed that in 2008, the department took steps to begin terminating a small number of Hispanic and black officers who were still in their probationary or training periods. He stated that he believed that those steps were a result of racial discrimination. Taylor alleged that prior to an officer’s termination, he would be consulted about officers who allegedly had no deficiencies on record that would warrant termination. He claimed he made multiple complaints to the chief of police about the threatened terminations and stopped them from occurring. Taylor claimed that after he learned he might be demoted, he reported the alleged discrimination to an outgoing member of the city council and also reported the issue to the city manager. Taylor alleged that at or around the same time, an internal affairs investigation was looking into a previous investigation within the police department regarding the department’s handling of the 2007 burglary of Porto’s Bakery. The original investigation, which took place in 2008, was prompted by complaints against Lieutenant Omar Rodriguez, who was accused of using physical force against a possible witness to facts regarding the bakery burglary. The 2008 investigation, which Taylor oversaw, ultimately concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Rodriguez committed any wrongdoing. Taylor claimed that a second investigation, which began in April 2009, was then commenced in order to rid him and Rodriguez, a Hispanic officer, from the police department. The 2009 investigation determined that Taylor obstructed the original internal affairs investigation and, as as a result, he was fired in June 2010. At trial, a former Burbank city council member testified that Taylor complained to her that the police department was firing minority police officers based on their race. The former council member also testified that three months prior to the resolution of the second internal affairs investigation, the city manager told her that the 2009 investigation would result in discipline from top to bottom of the police department. Plaintiff’s counsel presented an anonymous letter that was sent to the city council and the mayor’s office in 2008, which alleged that a small group of listed officers were being subjected to name-calling and inappropriate comments, as well as other forms of discrimination due to their race or national origin. The plaintiff’s police practices and procedures expert opined that Taylor did not violate any police protocol in his role during the first investigation into the Porto’s Bakery burglary, and that James Gardiner (the defense expert who conducted the second investigation into the burglary) produced no new evidence in the second investigation, which merely looked at the facts differently. Plaintiff’s counsel also relied on the testimony of former Police Chief Tim Stehr, who said that he told Taylor to keep a close eye on the investigation. The city of Burbank denied the allegations and maintained that it never terminated an officer based on his or her race or ethnicity. The city presented evidence that Taylor’s reassignment from the deputy chief position was due to a departmental reorganization, wherein the then-chief of police took on a number of Taylor’s previous responsibilities and the other three captains also were reassigned different duties. Taylor’s rank both before and after May 2009 remained that of captain, and the deputy chief assignment was worth a monthly salary differential of $500, defense counsel noted. The current chief and deputy chief of police, as well as the outside investigator, testified to the good cause for Taylor’s termination in reliance on an outside investigator’s findings, and the absence of any retaliatory motive or intent. The city also disputed the claims of discrimination, maintaining that each of the alleged targeted officers of discrimination are still with the police department and were never the subject of even a threat of termination. Moreover, none of the Hispanic or black probationary officers were terminated. The city also showed that Taylor never made a written report of discrimination and disputed his claimed oral reports. Defense counsel argued that the city demonstrated its prompt response to the anonymous letter cited by the plaintiff, which included the hiring of an outside Hispanic investigator who interviewed each of the listed officers and others, and which resulted in disciplinary action based upon the investigator’s findings. Gardiner, the defense expert who conducted the second investigation into the burglary, testified that he was a retired police chief who was hired by the city attorney for Burbank to conduct the second investigation. He also testified that the chief of police was directed to allow him to conduct the investigation and that a police captain was assigned to assist him. Gardiner claimed that the findings rendered by the second investigation — that Taylor obstructed the first investigation regarding the Porto’s Bakery burglary — was based on sufficient evidence and the statements of both the original investigators, a police captain and former chief of police. He claimed that their statements to him showed that the plaintiff lied about his obstruction of the first investigation. Gardiner further claimed that he found violations of standard protocols and new evidence in the second investigation, including an eyewitness of the use of force. He alleged that as a result, he found that Taylor manipulated the investigation by, among other things, instructing officers on how to conduct a photo line-up, which countered customary line-up configuration; restricting interviews by officers; and impugning the investigator’s motives instead of replacing him with a different investigator. Thus, defense counsel maintained that the plaintiff’s termination was justified., Taylor claimed that the demotion and subsequent termination caused him to suffer an elevation in his already high blood pressure, which the plaintiff’s treating internist expert related to the defendant’s alleged wrongdoing. As a result, Taylor was forced to adjust his medication, which eventually lowered his blood pressure, and he was cleared by his internist to return to work five months before he was terminated. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Taylor non-economic damages in the amount of $3 million to $5 million. Taylor, who was four months away from turning 50, which would benefit his pension, also sought recovery of damages for his past and future lost earnings in the amounts of $1.05 million to $1.8 million.