In March 2014, plaintiff Talbert Mitchell, 60, an advocacy coordinator, was terminated from his position with SEIU. Mitchell previously went out on medical leave due to a hernia in September 2013. He then required additional time thereafter due to medical complications after surgery, placing him on leave until January 2014. After he returned to work, Mitchell learned that management and the Legal Department hired a friend of SEIU’s general counsel to serve as the advocacy director. In February 2014, once the advocacy director started work at SEIU and performing the director duties, Mitchell was informed that he would no longer receive the five-percent, additional-responsibilities bonus that he once received. In March 2014, Mitchell was terminated for alleged insubordination and undermining the new advocacy director. Mitchell claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability and taking medical leave and that he was ultimately wrongfully terminated for whistleblowing. Mitchell sued SEIU Local 721; SEIU, Local 721, CTW, CLC; and several individuals who also worked at Local 721. Mitchell alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, including retaliation, disability discrimination, and wrongful termination. He also alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The individual defendants were ultimately dismissed from the case, and the parties agreed that Local 721 and Local 721 CTW CLC were the same entity. Thus, the matter continued against SEIU Local 721 only. Mitchell claimed that before his medical leave, in or about September 2013, he directed the preparation of a report regarding the existence of a backlog of arbitration cases pending scheduling, which he contended was the responsibility of SEIU’s Legal Department, and that he previously raised similar concerns in the past. However, SEIU Local 721 denied the existence of a backlog, and Mitchell claimed that after his return from medical leave, he was treated differently and poorly. He also claimed that he was overlooked for promotion to advocacy director, even though he had already been performing some of those job duties and receiving a corresponding, five-percent, additional-responsibilities bonus. He alleged that, instead, management and the Legal Department hired a friend of SEIU Local 721’s general counsel to serve as the advocacy director. Mitchell further alleged that once the advocacy director started work at SEIU Local 721 and performing the director duties in February 2014, he was informed that he would no longer receive the five-percent, additional-responsibilities bonus. In addition, Mitchell alleged that although SEIU Local 721 claimed that it terminated him in March 2014 for insubordination and undermining the new advocacy director, there was no documentation presented that showed any type of prior disciplinary action and that SEIU Local 721 had admittedly placed “enhanced” documents in his personnel file, after his termination, to purportedly show his insubordination. Thus, Mitchell claimed that SEIU Local 721 retaliated against him for raising issues of the arbitration backlog. Defense counsel contended that Mitchell’s leave for the hernia was unknown to SEIU Local 721 until the filing of the complaint. Counsel also maintained that SEIU Local 721 did not terminate Mitchell for any discriminatory, retaliatory, or otherwise unlawful reason and that it specifically did not discriminate or retaliate against Mitchell based on any disability, taking of medical leave, or reporting of an alleged backlog of arbitrations in the legal department. Defense counsel asserted, to the contrary, that SEIU Local 721 never knew that Mitchell had any disability and thus, did not discriminate against him on that basis. Counsel further asserted that SEIU Local 721 willingly granted Mitchell’s successive requests for medical leave, even voluntarily extending his leave beyond that guaranteed under the law, and that Mitchell never reported any purported whistleblowing charges. In addition, defense counsel asserted that SEIU Local 721, instead, terminated Mitchell for his insubordination; for undermining his immediate supervisor, SEIU Local 721’s new advocacy director, for a period of well over a month following his return from medical leave; and for his poor performance as advocacy coordinator., Mitchell worked with SEIU for a total of 34 years. He began working with SEIU 660 in 1993, which then merged to become 721 in 2007, and he alleged that during that time, he performed all of his job duties for 21 years in an exemplary manner. In 2012, he was promoted to advocacy coordinator and then manager, and in the absence of an advocacy director, he even assumed those job responsibilities. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that it was later revealed that when Mitchell applied for the advocacy director position, it was only after the legal department posted the job under the allegedly false pretense that it was actually available, as they had already offered the job to the general counsel’s friend. Mitchell claimed that he suffered from emotional distress as a result of the events. The plaintiff’s psychology expert diagnosed Mitchell with adjustment disorder with depressed mood, chronic, in partial remission. The expert also identified Mitchell as a candidate for mental health treatment. Thus, Mitchell sought recovery of past and future loss of wages, and of emotional-distress damages. He also sought recovery of punitive damages for SEIU Local 721’s conduct in terminating Mitchell and the conduct surrounding his termination, including, but not limited to, initially denying the existence of an arbitration backlog; accusing Mitchell’s department advocacy of being responsible, instead of the legal department; attempting to explain that the arbitration backlog was the result of a computer system inconsistency that was not supported by any documentation; attempting to explain that the arbitration backlog was caused by the closure of ERCOM, despite the dating of such a closure being inconsistent in explaining the backlog; attempting to explain that the arbitration backlog was the result of the unions merging; posting a job for the director position where Mitchell could apply despite already offering the same job to the general counsel’s friend; claiming, via witness testimony by their Chief of Staff, that Mitchell was not qualified to even take on the role as interim coordinator, despite subsequently promoting him to the position permanently and then to manager; documenting Mitchell’s supposed insubordination with notes before subsequently “enhancing” them to memorandums per witness testimony and destroying the original notes and then placing the enhanced memorandums into Mitchell’s personnel file after his termination; and firing Mitchell for alleged “insubordination” resulting from his supposed refusal to help the new director, despite testimony from witnesses showing that Mitchell said in response to such a request that he would “do the best [he] can.”