In September 2011, plaintiff Matt Niswonger, a lineman in his 40s, was terminated from his position at Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s Santa Cruz yard facility. Prior to his termination, Niswonger and other linemen were asked to replace a broken electrical pole on Hihn Road in Ben Lomond. His supervisor said the repair could be done without shutting down power. They were ultimately able to complete the work, but an incident occurred that caused live, high-voltage wires to come close to touching during the course of their work. As a result, Niswonger complained to his union safety representative and supervisors about having to repair electric lines without shutting down power, claiming it was dangerous. In addition, he allegedly suffered from panic attacks, anxiety and depression, and took a month-long medical absence. When his supervisor called to ask him to return to work to talk about the absence, Niswonger responded that he would not. Niswonger and his supervisor then exchanged voicemails about the absence throughout the week until the supervisor ultimately fired him in a voicemail. Niswonger sued PG&E, alleging the defendant’s actions constituted wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California Labor Code § 6310, which prohibits firing someone in retaliation for complaining to their employer or representative about unsafe working processes or conditions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that less than one year after the San Bruno pipe explosion, Niswonger complained to his union safety representative and supervisors that being sent to repair electric lines without shutting down power to the lines in Ben Lomand was dangerous to the PG&E workers, as well as the neighborhood. Counsel contended that after Niswonger made the complaints, PG&E engaged in a course of retaliation, including pre-textual write-ups and discipline, which all eventually resulted in Niswonger’s termination. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Niswonger was terminated in retaliation for making safety complaints about the company. PG&E claimed that Niswonger was terminated for legitimate business reasons. Defense counsel mainly argued that Niswonger hadn’t made a protected safety complaint and even if he had, it wasn’t why Niswonger was fired., Niswonger, a father of three, worked for PG&E from 2003 until his termination in September 2011. He sought recovery of damages for his emotional distress and lost wages and benefits.