On Feb. 11, 2016, plaintiff Rasean Johnson, the imaging supervisor at the city of San Diego’s archives and records management department, was notified that he was being removed from his position. Johnson had submitted a grievance to the city’s human resources department on Sept. 9, 2015. The grievance was related to his immediate supervisor in the clerk’s office. Johnson complained that his supervisor was violating city policies by promoting her religious beliefs in the workplace. An investigation was commenced in October 2015. Johnson claimed that after he submitted his grievance, his immediate supervisor subjected him to various forms of retaliation, including the removal of his supervisory responsibilities. In late March 2016, the city’s equal employment investigations office manager notified Johnson and the city clerk’s office that it had found sufficient evidence to substantiate that Johnson’s supervisor violated the city’s equal employment opportunity policies in regard to Johnson’s initial grievance. The city’s equal employment investigations office also investigated Johnson’s retaliation allegations but found them to be not supported by evidence. In April 2016, Johnson was transferred to the public-utilities department. He then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and his new manager was notified about the EEOC complaint approximately two months later. Johnson sued the city of San Diego. He brought a claim of religious discrimination, which was tied to his grievance against his supervisor in the clerk’s office, and alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment. Johnson also claimed that he was retaliated against for filing the grievance against his supervisor. The city’s counsel moved for summary judgment, and it was granted in relation to Johnson’s religious discrimination and hostile work environment causes of action. As a result, the court precluded Johnson from presenting any alleged conduct before Dec. 13, 2015, as any prior conduct was time barred, and only Johnson’s retaliation claim and evidence relevant to it was presented at trial. Johnson claimed the city failed to take appropriate remedial action to correct and prevent his immediate supervisor’s alleged conduct. He claimed that, instead, the city transferred him to a less-favorable position, workspace and job assignment in retaliation for filing a grievance against his supervisor. Defense counsel denied there was any retaliation resulting from Johnson’s filing of a grievance, and maintained that Johnson’s grievance to the city did not result in any adverse action against him in his job duties or position. Specifically, counsel argued that Johnson’s transfer to the Public Utilities Department from the clerk’s office was not retaliatory because Johnson chose to transfer and keep the same salary. Defense counsel contended that Johnson could have stayed in the clerk’s office and worked in a different section, outside of his immediate supervisor’s direct or indirect supervision, but that Johnson preferred the work schedule and workload at the Public Utilities Department. Counsel also contended that Johnson was able to earn substantial overtime in the new position. In addition, defense counsel contended that since it was a much larger department, it was believed that the position in the Public Utilities Department offered more opportunities to advance., Johnson claimed that he was employed for 12 years in the clerk’s office as an undisputed “excellent” employee, but that after he filed a grievance against his immediate supervisor, he was stripped of his supervisory duties and eventually forced to transfer to a less-favorable position, workspace and job assignment. He alleged that the transfer cost him promotional opportunities that he would have received had he continued in the clerk’s office. Johnson also claimed that he suffered from emotional distress as a result of the events. Johnson sought recovery of lost wages, and damages for his emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that the city offered Johnson a job transfer, at the same salary, at Johnson’s request. Counsel also contended that Johnson could potentially earn more in the position with the Public Utilities Department, as there are opportunities to earn substantial overtime in the new position. In addition, defense counsel argued that since it was a much larger department, Johnson actually believed the new position offered him more opportunities to advance.