In October 2012, plaintiff Hung “Henry” Duong, 58, an Electronics Department chairman for ITT Educational Services Inc., sought to be promoted to the position of dean. However, following a required assessment, he received a “not recommended,” and, instead, ITT hired Pha Mouavangsou as the new dean. Two months later, in January 2013, Duong’s supervisor, Mouavangsou, met with Doug to issue a write-up for three instances of leaving work early without permission. During the meeting, Duong indicated that he felt as if he was being harassed by Allison Hopkins, the college director (the highest level manager on campus). Mouavangsou subsequently informed Hopkins about Duong’s complaint about being harassed by her. During the March 2013 quarter, Duong cancelled several classes in the Electronics Technology Department. As a result, Hopkins became concerned about Duong’s repeated cancellation of classes and asked another employee, Dawn Lawrence, to obtain certain scheduling records for her review. On the morning of April 17, 2013, Lawrence obtained the scheduling records for Hopkins, but she was also informed by Duong that he was considering taking legal action in connection with not being promoted to the dean position back in November 2012, among other things. Lawrence subsequently reported Duong’s statements to Hopkins, who, later in the day, sent an email titled “Lawsuit Threat” to the Human Resources Department and Sam Russell, a district manager in charge of 12 campuses across five states. The email recounted how Duong told Lawrence that he was finding out if he had a case against the school and against Hopkins, personally, for not getting an interview for the dean position. The email also discussed how Duong went to the labor board to determine his rights regarding the demand for hours of labor. On May 1, 2013, Duong filed a complaint using the company’s employee alert line, alleging discrimination based upon his age. ITT subsequently commenced an investigation into Duong’s complaint, as well as into separate allegations that Duong had violated company policies. ITT concluded that Duong’s complaint was unfounded, and in June 2013, it terminated Duong’s employment. Duong sued ITT Educational Services Inc., Allison Hopkins, and Sam Russell. Duong alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted age discrimination, retaliation, defamation, wrongful termination, and violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Duong claimed that he was not promoted and was discriminated against because of his age. He also claimed that Hopkins was harassing him by demanding hours of labor and subsequently had Mouavangsou write him up for three instances of leaving work early. Duong testified that that told Mouavangsou during the meeting about how he felt that Hopkins was harassing him, but that as a result, Hopkins retaliated against him by reviewing his scheduling records. In addition, he claimed that when he told Lawrence that he was considering suing for not being promoted, he was further retaliated against by being accused of violating company policy and falsifying records. Duong alleged that the allegations against him constituted defamation and ultimately resulted in his wrongful termination. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the defendants unlawfully retaliated against and defamed Duong by fabricating accusations of falsification of student attendance records. Counsel contended that the retaliation was for Duong’s “lawsuit threat” and other activities that were protected under FEHA. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that the defendant’s own attendance reports proved that the accusations were false and that despite Duong being accused of somehow being involved in falsely marking students present in a particular class, nobody ever changed the official attendance record for the class to show any students were absent. Mouavangsou claimed that he met with Duong in January 2013 to issue Duong a write-up for three instances of leaving work early without permission. Although Duong indicated that he felt that he was being harassed by Hopkins, Mouavangsou testified that he did not interpret the complaint to be about any protected classification, but rather that Duong was just complaining about being asked to work. Mouavangsou claimed that regardless of the intention behind Duong’s “harassment” complaint, he still reported the complaint to Hopkins. Mouavangsou further testified that after he told Hopkins about the complaint, Hopkins called Russell to express concern about what was going to happen to her and what the company was going to do. However, Hopkins and Russell both testified that the alleged phone call never occurred. Defense counsel contended that in addition to Duong leaving work early three times without permission, Duong later cancelled several classes during the March 2013 quarter, a practice that created confusion and problems for students. Specifically, counsel contended that Duong canceled three classes within the first five weeks alone, which Duong did without proper authorization, and in violation of company policy. Hopkins claimed that when she learned about Duong’s repeated cancellation of classes, she became concerned and had Lawrence obtain certain scheduling records for her and that when Lawrence obtained the records on the morning of April 17, 2013, she first learned that Duong was intending to sue. She claimed that as a result, she informed H.R. and Russell, via email, about Duong’s intentions. However, Lawrence testified that she did not interpret Duong’s comments to be reports of discrimination based upon any protected classification. Hopkins further claimed that after she reviewed Duong’s scheduling records, she held a meeting with Duong, Lawrence and Mouavangsou. Both Lawrence and Mouavangsou testified that at the meeting on April 30, 2013, Duong admitted to having instructors sign blank request forms for attendance revisions, a practice that violated company policy. Defense counsel argued that having instructors sign blank attendance revision forms was an act of falsification of student attendance records. However, at trial, Duong denied the allegation that he asked instructors to sign blank attendance revision forms. Defense counsel noted that Duong filed his discrimination complaint using the company’s employee alert line on May 1, 2013, the day after the April 30, 2013 meeting. Counsel also noted that ITT commenced an investigation into Duong’s complaint, as well as into the allegations about Duong allegedly violating company policies. Counsel further noted that ITT concluded that Duong’s complaint was unfounded. Defense counsel argued that all of the alleged statements that were the subject of the defamation cause of action fell within the common interest privilege and that certain statements were non-actionable opinions. In addition, counsel contended that ITT had a good faith belief in the truth of the statements against Duong, so it terminated Duong’s employment in June 2013 because Duong had admitted to possessing pre-signed attendance revision forms and had cancelled classes without proper authorization, both policy violations. Thus, defense counsel argued that ITT fired Duong for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons., Duong was born in Vietnam in the late 1950s, and he came to the United States as a refugee of the Vietnam War. Thereafter, he learned to speak English and attained a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from San Jose State University. Duong worked three jobs at the time of his termination from ITT: he was a chairman of the Electronics Department at ITT; he was an adjunct instructor of engineering at Fresno State University; and he was a part-time instructor of business information systems at Fresno City College. He has kept the jobs with Fresno State University and Fresno City College, and was ultimately able to pick up more classes to teach to make up for some of his lost income. However, he claimed that he has been unable to find full-time employment since his termination, despite reasonable efforts. In addition, Duong claimed that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the events at ITT. He did not seek counseling for his emotional distress, but ultimately sought and received medical treatment for his depression and high blood pressure. Thus, Duong sought recovery of $89,150 in past lost earnings and benefits and $369,123 in future lost earnings and benefits. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Duong’s past lost earnings would be, at most, $86,441 and that Duong’s future lost earnings would be $0.