In 2011, plaintiff Daniel Hayes, 33, was hired as a warehouseman by Able Aerospace out of its Santa Clarita location. Hayes claimed that during the course of his employment, Mukesh Desai, the owner of Able Aerospace, demanded that he dispose large quantities of hazardous and toxic waste in the regular trash. Hayes claimed that when he refused to do so on three occasions — in January 2012, March 2012, and June 2012 – it result in his termination in July 2012. Hayes sued Able Aerospace International Inc., which was doing business as Able Aerospace, and Desai-Aire Inc., the owning entity of Able Aerospace. Hayes alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation and wrongful termination under Labor Code § 1102.5(c) and under a common law cause of action for termination in violation of public policy. Defense counsel moved for judgment in the pleadings, arguing that Hayes failed to exhaust remedies under Labor Code § 98.7 before filing suit. The motion was granted in part, dismissing the § 1102.5(c) cause of action. Hayes claimed that Desai demanded that he dispose of large quantities of hazardous and toxic waste in the regular trash in an effort to save money by avoiding the need to hire hazardous waste disposal companies. He further claimed that his refusal to commit an unlawful act resulted in the defendants retaliating against him through wrongful termination. Defense counsel disputed Hayes’ claims and contended that Hayes was terminated due to a decrease in sales. Counsel also contended that Hayes was not asked to dispose of “large quantities,” but rather 12 to 15 bags of hand-size containers of aerospace adhesive compound, which Hayes had uncapped and put on the roof of the facility for 5.5 months in order for the compound to become not hazardous due to exposure., Hayes claimed that he was humiliated by his termination, causing him to suffer emotional distress. He also claimed he remained unemployed for one year before he was ultimately able to find a new job. Thus, Hayes sought recovery of roughly $24,000 in compensatory damages for his lost earnings, including benefits, during the year he was unemployed. He also sought recovery of damages for his emotional distress and humiliation. In addition, Hayes sought recovery of punitive damages, alleging his former employers committed unwillful acts. According to defense counsel, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Hayes $240,000 in punitive damages, which plaintiff’s counsel denied. Defense counsel asked the jury to award null in punitive damages or, in the alternative, no more than $2,500.