In May 2012, plaintiff Joanne Hoeper, the chief trial deputy at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, and her investigative team provided their preliminary findings to the city attorney, Dennis Herrera, regarding potential illegal conduct within Herrera’s own office. In late December 2011, Hoeper received a tip from the Federal Bureau of Investigation about a possible illegal scheme within Herrera’s office, in the Claims Unit, to pay false claims to plumbers and contractors for repairs to San Francisco’s sewer lines. Hoeper and her investigative team spent the next three months interviewing witnesses and reviewing hundreds of claims files. They ultimately provided their preliminary findings to Herrera in May 2012 and were allegedly told to continue investigating the claims. The 27-page draft of the report of the investigation, dated July 18, 2012, that Hoeper provided to Herrera contained details of the alleged illegal conduct, which supposedly involved supervisors within the Claims Unit facilitating and approving millions of dollars of false claims submitted by plumbers and contractors. Thereafter, Hoeper recommended a further investigation regarding potential kickbacks and/or conflicts of interest. On July 24, 2012, Hoeper met with Herrera about her recommendations. The next day, Herrera told Hoeper that she would be removed from her job position as chief trial deputy of the City Attorney’s Office. Hoeper was then temporarily transferred to the District Attorney’s Office and then slated to be fired effective Jan. 7, 2014. In July 2014, Hoeper sued Herrera and her employer, the city and county of San Francisco. Hoeper alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a retaliation against a whistleblower in violation of California Government Code §12653 and Labor Code § 1102.5. Herrera was ultimately dismissed from the case, and the matter continued against the city and county of San Francisco only. Hoeper claimed that although Herrera told her to continue investigating the claims after she and her team had presented their preliminary evidence, Herrera had actually started working behind the scenes to shut down the investigation and arrange to have her fired. She also claimed that the city and county of San Francisco was liable for Herrera’s actions. Defense counsel contended that Herrera had been dissatisfied with Hoeper’s performance as head of the trial team for years and that in 2008, Herrera carved out and transferred a significant part of Hoeper’s responsibilities because of his dissatisfaction. Counsel also contended that Herrera began looking to replace Hoeper no later than 2010. In addition, defense counsel argued that Hoeper was not a whistleblower, as Hoeper’s seven-month investigation, which involved three investigators within the City Attorney’s Office and over 1,100 hours of labor, resulted in no evidence of such a scheme. Counsel further argued that the sewer policy, in which the city paid for the replacement of upper lateral sewers when city-owned tree roots invaded the sewers, was a long-standing city policy, that there was no evidence anyone received kickbacks, and that Hoeper never understood the sewer claims process., Hoeper was a deputy city attorney for 20 years and was chief trial deputy when she was terminated on Jan. 7, 2014. She claimed she suffered approximately $600,000 in past lost wages and approximately $1.3 million in future loss of wages. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering as a result of her alleged emotional distress.