On July 8, 2016, plaintiff Daryl Woodruff, an electrical maintenance and construction supervisor for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., was suspended from his job and subjected to a company investigation. He was ultimately terminated on Sept. 16, 2016. Prior to his termination, Woodruff, a black man, was involved in a safety investigation of electrical transformers because of an earlier transformer explosion in San Francisco in September 2015. During the course of his investigation, he came to believe that a non-black supervisor and his team were making false representations to internal and external investigators regarding safety inspections of other transformers. Specifically, Woodruff believed that the supervisor was falsely reporting to the Public Utilities Commission that he and his team had inspected transformers that they had not actually inspected. Woodruff reported his beliefs and findings to the supervisor in question, the superintendent, other members of the investigatory team, and representatives from the Public Utilities Commission. Later, Woodruff was contacted by the human-resources department regarding a race-discrimination complaint that was filed against the superintendent by a lower level employee. Woodruff reported that he felt that the superintendent gave preferential treatment based on race to non-black employees. Woodruff was suspended on July 8, 2016, just days before he was to interview for a promotion. He was then subjected to a company investigation for allegedly falsifying company records. The investigative report concluded that Woodruff might have made some mistakes in filling out electric overhead notification forms, known as “EC tags,” but that there was no substantiation of the claim that he had intentionally falsified company records. Despite the investigation’s findings, the superintendent decided to fire Woodruff on Sept. 16, 2016. Woodruff sued Pacific Gas & Electric Co., alleging racial discrimination and whistleblower retaliation. Woodruff claimed that he was not promoted and/or that he was fired because he is black. He also claimed that he was not promoted and/or that he was fired in retaliation for cooperating in a racial discrimination investigation and/or for reporting his concerns about allegedly inadequate PG&E safety inspections. Specifically, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the non-black supervisor whom Woodruff suspected of making false representations regarding safety inspections retaliated against Woodruff by attempting to initiate a formal investigation into EC tags in May 2016, but that the supervisor did not believe there was a good cause to investigate at that time. Counsel argued that the supervisor changed his mind and agreed to proceed with the investigation after Woodruff reported his beliefs about the supervisor to human resources during the race-discrimination investigation. Defense counsel disputed Woodruff’s allegations, asserting that Woodruff was not promoted in 2016 because the position in question was canceled. Counsel also argued that Woodruff could not prove that race was a motivating factor in his termination, and noted that the superintendent was the one who hired Woodruff as a supervisor. In addition, counsel argued that Woodruff was terminated for legitimate reasons, as Woodruff was allegedly not properly performing his job and did not comply with PG&E’s EC tag protocol. Defense counsel moved summary judgment. The court grated the motion for summary judgment, in part, finding in favor of PG&E and against Woodruff on the race discrimination and failure to promote claims. The trial continued on the issues of whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination., Woodruff claimed that suffers from a loss of income as a result of his termination. He also claimed that he suffers from emotional distress as a result of the investigation against him and subsequent termination. Woodruff sought recovery of more than $1.8 million for his past and future loss of earnings, and emotional distress damages. He also sought recovery of punitive damages. However, the court later ordered a directed verdict in favor of PG&E on Woodruff’s claim regarding punitive damages.