In early January 2013, plaintiff James Willis, a white police sergeant for the city of Carlsbad’s Crimes of Violence Division, was removed from his detective position and transferred back to patrol by the investigations captain. He was then denied selection into several general investigations openings, including three openings in the Crimes of Violence Division, even after another detective was promoted to sergeant and transferred out of that division in 2013 and 2014. In March 2015, the police department introduced a new evaluation system for its officers, named Review Performance Monthly. However, the Police Officers Association, of which Willis was the president and spokesperson, spoke out against the new evaluation system. In July 2015, Willis was passed over for promotion to sergeant and was then denied a promotion off the same list in March 2016. Willis sued the city of Carlsbad, alleging that he was retaliated against for opposing racial discrimination and for being a whistleblower. Willis asserted that he was retaliated against for opposing the department’s new evaluation system and for testifying in an internal police department investigation in August 2012 in support of a complaint by a fellow officer, a Hispanic-American, who claimed he was subjected to harassing treatment, including racial discrimination by some other officers. He claimed that he testified to a third-party investigator during the racial discrimination investigation, which was preserved by tape recordings, in August 2012 and that five months later, in early January 2013, he was removed from his Crimes of Violence detective position and transferred back to patrol by the investigations captain. He was then denied several other general investigations openings, including three openings in his old division, in 2013 and 2014. Willis also claimed that after he opposed the new evaluation system in March 2015, he was passed over for promotion to sergeant in July 2015, even though he scored the highest on the sergeant’s testing process, and was again denied promotion off the same promotion list in March 2016. Defense counsel contended that Willis’ testimony was actually consistent with the third-party investigator’s ultimate conclusion, that there was “absolutely” no racial discrimination against the fellow officer and that no one heard or witnessed behavior that supported the fellow officer’s racial discrimination claim. However, Willis claimed that before the third-party investigator started recording his testimony, he told the investigator that he feared retaliation and that the other detective’s hatred toward the fellow officer was “over the top” and beyond a regular workplace disagreement. Willis also claimed he told the third-party investigator, off the record, that he heard the other detective in his division tell a racial joke, but not about the fellow officer. Defense counsel noted that in June 2012, at the start of the third-party investigation of the fellow officer’s allegations, an email written by a “Bill Lassen” was circulated very widely, including being circulated throughout the District Attorney’s Office and several San Diego media outlets. The email accused the other detective in the Crimes of Violence Division of what amounted to be felony perjury surrounding his testimony in a murder investigation. However, in November 2012, during several internal investigations, through which all allegations against the other detective were determined to be false, Willis admitted to being the author of the Lassen email while he was out on family leave. Defense counsel argued that Willis’ removal from the Crimes of Violence Division and his non-promotion to sergeant had to do with the Lassen email, and not his participation in the fellow officer’s investigation or his alleged “opposition” to racial discrimination. Counsel also argued that Willis’ non-selection to the investigative positions was a result of the process, in which Willis was not selected for various legitimate and non-retaliatory reasons. Counsel contended that three different sergeants and at least 10 panel interviewers were responsible for the investigations selections and that none of them knew about Willis’ interview with the third-party investigator or had any idea what Willis told the investigator on or off the record. In addition, the police chief testified that the reason he did not promote Willis to sergeant in July 2015 was because of the lingering lack of trust and damaged character that stemmed from the Lassen email and that Willis was denied a promotion in March 2016 because he had already determined that he would not promote Willis off that list. However, the chief claimed that he encouraged Willis to keep applying and that Willis was eventually promoted to sergeant in December 2016., Willis sought recovery of economic damages for the 16 months he claimed he should have been a sergeant, had he been promoted in July 2015. He also sought recovery of non-economic damages for the stress, humiliation, depression and lack of sleep that he suffered during the times he was not promoted to sergeant. The plaintiff’s economist opined that Willis’ economic damages totaled $66,160 in past lost earnings and benefits, and $8,461 in future lost earnings and benefits. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Willis a “minimum” of $50,000 in non-economic damages.