In May 2012, plaintiff Jesse Flores, 51, a Mexican-American police officer with the Carlsbad Police Department who was an investigator on the North County Regional Gang Task Force, was placed on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation into whether he was untruthful about information he received from a confidential informant. About eight months after Flores started with the North County Regional Gang Task Force in 2008, Flores became aware of negative things allegedly being said about him by members of the Carlsbad Police Department’s Crimes of Violence Unit. Flores’ sergeant then told him about the negative comments in April 2009. Members of the gang task force also knew about the friction between the crimes of violence unit and Flores. As a result, Flores and the crimes of violence unit met in May 2009 to try to improve the situation and the friction, and improve communication between the crimes of violence unit and the gang task force, which was supposed to occur via Flores and the CPD representative on the gang task force. However, over the next few years, the crimes of violence unit members allegedly said more negative things about Flores. (From the crimes of violence unit’s perspective, Flores earned the negative comments by failing to competently perform as a detective in order to assist the crimes of violence unit in homicide investigations. From Flores’ perspective, the negativity was an attempt by the crimes of violence unit to sabotage his career and make him look bad at the gang task force.) Flores’ supervisor repeatedly tried to stand up for Flores against the criticism and even asked a peer officer of both Flores and a crimes of violence unit member to act as a kind of mediator to ease the conflict. Ultimately, in March 2012, both Flores and his supervisor spoke with several lieutenants, captains, and even the chief about the situation and the alleged “abuse” Flores was receiving by the crimes of violence unit members. As a result, in April 2012, Flores was ordered to go to the city’s human resources department and speak with a human resources manager about a complaint filed on Flores’ behalf by a CPD captain. The complaint was pursuant to the city’s Administrative Order No. 45 (Amin 45), which prohibits various kinds of hostile work environment and discrimination situations. However, Flores declined to be interviewed and stated he did not want to go forward with the Admin 45 complaint. Up to that time, by his own admission, Flores had not previously complained of racial discrimination when complaining about the bad behavior by the crimes of violence unit. On April 27, 2012, Flores happened to be at the police department when he overheard a conversation after a meeting ended between the crimes of violence unit and United States Marshals about the possible location of a homicide suspect in Mexico. Flores casually stated that he had a confidential informant (CI) who knew where the suspect was in Mexico. Flores claimed he had received the information from the CI about a month to six weeks earlier. The crimes of violence unit members were upset that Flores had not relayed the information sooner, so Flores’ new supervisor asked for a meeting between Flores, the crimes of violence unit members and the lieutenant in charge of the crimes of violence unit. At the meeting, later the same day, Flores claimed that the reason he had not relayed the CI’s information sooner was just a “brain fart,” and when he was asked if he had documented the information, Flores assured them that he had it in a CI contact report. As a result, Flores’ supervisor asked for a copy of the report, but Flores said he could not share that report outside of the gang task force, but that he would write a report and get them the information in a few days. However, Flores later called his CPD supervisor and told him no one was available at the gang task force to give Flores access to the CI file. So, he told his CPD supervisor that he had written a report, but that he was concerned about it being 100 percent accurate because it was written from memory. After reviewing the report, the CPD supervisor had some concerns and decided to go to the gang task force’s headquarters to see the CI file himself. However, when he got there, the gang task force’s supervisors claimed that there was no CI file, that the alleged CI was not signed up as a gang task force informant, and that Flores had been there that very morning to try to sign up the CI as a gang task force informant, but that Flores’ request was denied by the gang task force supervisor. As a result, the CPD supervisor felt that Flores had been untruthful and, on May 3, 2012, he instituted the internal affairs investigation into whether Flores had been untruthful about the CI, the existence of a CI file and the existence of a CI contact report. Flores was subsequently placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation. In June 2012, Flores “resurrected” the previous Admin 45 complaint, only this time he characterized his complaint as one of racial discrimination. Flores claimed that he was placed on paid administrative leave in May 2012 in retaliation for his opposition to the racial discrimination against him, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and that every adverse employment action after June 2012 was also in retaliation for his opposition to racial discrimination. An investigation into Flores’ claims found that same month found there was “no hint of racial discrimination” against Flores, but it did result in sustained findings against two members of the crimes of violence unit on other aspects of the Admin 45 policy. In January 2013, the internal affairs investigation determined that Flores was untruthful. As a result, he was terminated on Jan. 6, 2013. Flores subsequently appealed his termination. The hearing officer ultimately determined that there was no just cause for the termination and recommended that Flores be reinstated as a police officer. Flores was reinstated as a police officer on March 24, 2014, with full back pay, but the CPD did not put him back into his position with the gang task force. As a result, Flores assumed his duties as a patrol officer. However, he also was again placed on paid administrative leave on Sept. 17, 2014, pending multiple investigations of various alleged misconduct. The leave lasted 10 months. Flores then applied for the special assignment back to the gang task force on April 20, 2016, but he was denied that assignment and it was given to another officer. Thus, Flores claimed that after his employment was reinstated, the retaliation against him continued. Flores sued his employer, the city of Carlsbad. He alleged that he was retaliated against, in violation of Government Code § 12940(h), for opposing racial discrimination against him that allegedly occurred from 2008 to 2012. Defense counsel filed a motion in limine to preclude information about the investigation into Flores’ discrimination claims and its results from coming into evidence, but Flores wanted that information to be presented at trial. Thus, the jury was instructed, over defense counsel’s objection, that the hearing officer determined that there was no just cause for Flores’ termination and that the finding was binding as to the city. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that between 2008 and 2012, Flores was discriminated against based on his race. Counsel presented evidence from a former member of the crimes of violence unit, who had sued the department himself for wrongful termination, lost at trial, and blamed the subject crimes of violence unit sergeant for his termination. The former member claimed that one of the other members of the crimes of violence unit, in front of the unit’s sergeant, referred to Flores as “that f—ing Mexican” and referred to Mexicans in general as “f—ing Mexicans.” Flores claimed that he resurrected his previous Admin 45 complaint as a result of the continued racial discrimination and subsequent retaliation for opposing the discrimination. He claimed that the retaliation began in May 2012, when he was placed on paid administrative leave pending the investigation into whether he was untruthful about the alleged information he received from a confidential informant, and that every adverse employment action after June 2012 was in retaliation for his opposition to racial discrimination, in violation of the FEHA. He alleged that he was further retaliated against on Jan. 6, 2013, by way of his wrongful termination, which was ultimately determined to have no just cause. However, Flores claimed that despite being reinstated as a police officer on March 24, 2014, with full back pay, the CPD did not put him back into his position with the gang task force and made him assume duties as a patrol officer. He also claimed that, upon his reinstatement, there were further acts of retaliation, including multiple counseling meetings within his first few weeks back, denials of training, and failures to promote him to sergeant. Flores alleged that he was further retaliated against when he was placed on paid administrative leave for a second time on Sept. 17, 2014, which lasted 10 months, and that he was denied permission to wear his uniform during the oral board portion of the process for testing for the promotion to sergeant on May 21, 2015. In addition, he alleged that he was retaliated against when he was denied the special assignment back to the gang task force on April 20, 2016 and that, instead, the assignment was given to a lesser qualified officer. Defense counsel denied that Flores was retaliated against and contended that the city initially fired Flores based on findings from internal affairs. Counsel also contended that Flores was placed on administrative leave because of an internal affairs investigation into the belief that he was being untruthful as to a confidential informant’s claims and that he was placed on paid administrative leave a second time because of multiple investigations of various misconduct. Thus, counsel argued that neither leave was a form of retaliation against Flores. Counsel further denied that the officer that was assigned the gang task force assignment was unqualified and contended that Flores was ultimately promoted and appointed to another regional investigative position. In addition, defense counsel repeatedly reminded the jury that Flores’ case was narrowly focused on retaliation for opposing racial discrimination, and was not a general case of hostile work environment or harassment. Therefore, counsel argued that regardless of the “no just cause” instruction, the jury still must find that the termination was substantially motivated by retaliation for opposing racial discrimination., Flores sought recovery of economic and non-economic damages caused by the first paid administrative leave, the termination, the alleged further acts of retaliation that occurred after his reinstatement, and the second paid administrative leave. He claimed that as a result of the retaliation against him, he suffered from depression, family friction, increased consumption of alcohol, and stress. Thus, Flores sought recovery of $167,798 in past economic damages and $231,938 in future economic damages. His attorney also asked the jury to award Flores non-economic damages, “starting with $100,000”, at a minimum. Defense counsel noted that while the case was pending, Flores was promoted to corporal and that, about one week before trial, Flores was appointed to another regional investigative position, the narcotics task force. Thus, the defense’s expert economist opined that Flores’ economic damages totaled only $66,907.