In 2010, plaintiff Tony Brake, a supervisor in California Department of Transportation’s downtown Los Angeles office, learned that an employee named Mehran Sajjadi was being transferred to his department after Sajjadi had accused his prior supervisor, Rudy Pascua, of harassment based on Sajjadi’s Middle Eastern race. Brake claimed that shortly after the transfer, his own supervisor, Kwan Lam, began pushing him to retaliate against Sajjadi, since Lam had a friendship with Pascua. Brake claimed he refused to do so and reported the conduct to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). He claimed that as a result, Caltrans began retaliating against him in the form of an increased workload and denying him a promotion/pay increase. Brake sued Caltrans. Brake alleged that Caltrans failed to prevent discrimination and harassment in regards to Lam’s actions, and that these actions constituted retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Labor Code. Brake claimed that Lam told him to monitor Sajjadi constantly and micromanage his work, as well as write him up for any minor infractions. He claimed that Lam’s goal was to force Sajjadi to resign and that if Sajjadi did not resign, Lam wanted him to ultimately fire Sajjadi. Brake claimed when he refused to cooperate with Lam, he was retaliated against in the form of an increased workload with no increase in pay. He further claimed that he was turned down for a promotion with a pay increase even though he was a strong candidate with an outstanding work record during his 12 years with Caltrans. Caltrans disputed Brake’s claims, claiming that Lam never told Brake to retaliate against Sajjadi in any form. It also claimed that Brake never experienced any increase in workload and that, rather, Brake started changing the way he billed time on his worksheets. Caltrans further claimed that as an exempt employee, Brake could not earn overtime for working more hours and that Brake simply became overwhelmed with his workload. Caltrans contended that Lam was removed from his position in November 2010 (and later passed away in August 2011) and that Brake applied for Lam’s supervisory position in December 2011. However, it contended that it ultimately decided not to fill Lam’s position and that it did not interview anyone for the position. Thus, Caltrans claimed that Brake suffered no adverse employment action because the position Brake applied for no longer existed., Brake claimed he suffered a loss of earnings as a result of losing the promotion and that he suffered emotional distress from the ordeal. Thus, he sought recovery of $2,455 in past lost earnings, $189,911 in future lost earnings, $400,000 in past pain and suffering and $100,000 in future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that the subject position/promotion was never filled and that there was no opportunity for Brake to earn a raise. Thus, counsel argued that Brake did not suffer any loss of earnings. Defense counsel further argued that Caltrans did not cause Brake any emotional distress, so Brake should not be awarded any damages for pain and suffering.