In August 2017, plaintiff Karen Clopton, a chief administrative law judge, who is Black, was terminated from her position at the California Public Utilities Commission, which is the regulator for privately held natural gas, electric, water and other utilities in California. Clopton had managed 40 judges who handled complaints against the state’s energy companies. Prior to her termination, Clopton cooperated with investigators who were looking into the CPUC for its response to a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. gas pipeline explosion, in San Bruno, in 2010, and into conflicts of interest involving employees of PG&E contacting CPUC commissioners and staff, allegedly in order to influence judicial selections. She had also complained of racial bias at the CPUC. Clopton claimed that when the CPUC learned of her cooperation with investigators, she was fired. Clopton sued the California Public Utilities Commission; the president of the commissioners, Michael Picker; and Commissioners Martha Guzman Aceves, Carla Peterman, Liane Randolph and Clifford Rechtschaffen. Clopton alleged whistleblower retaliation and racial discrimination. Guzman, Aceves, Peterman and Rechtschaffen were dismissed from the case. The matter then continued against the CPUC, Picker and Randolph. Clopton alleged that she suffered adverse employment actions and that she was wrongfully discharged for engaging in protected activities. Specifically, she claimed that she was fired for cooperating with state and federal investigations into PG&E. She also claimed that the CPUC was upset with her for not promoting Executive Director Timothy Sullivan’s appointment of a judge candidate, Michael Colvin. Clopton had claimed that Colvin had unethical relationships with PG&E employees and had criticized current Black judges in emails in a racially offensive manner. She alleged that she was retaliated against for promoting and advocating for actions to address racial bias at the CPUC. Defense counsel denied the allegations and contended that the CPUC did not retaliate against Clopton because of her cooperation with probes into PG&E. Counsel noted that the investigations began in 2014 and that Clopton received positive job reviews until 2017. Instead, counsel contended that the CPUC hired an outside investigator in June 2016 and that the investigator allegedly found that Clopton used bullying, intimidation and retaliation toward her staff. Defense counsel asserted that based on the investigator’s findings, the CPUC gave Clopton a deficient review in February 2017 and notified Clopton in June 2017 that she would be terminated. In response, Clopton’s counsel denied the alleged behavior, and noted that Clopton was required to oversee and correct her staff., Clopton sought recovery for her loss of earnings as a result of her termination. She also claimed she suffered emotional distress as a result of the incidents, and sought recovery for her emotional pain and suffering.