In December 2010, plaintiff Bruce Gibson, 64, was the Senior Director of Human Resource Services for the Chancellor’s Officein the California State University system, in Long Beach. He was also the Senior Director of System Wide Equal Employment Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance and the Interim Senior Director of Campus Relations and Advocacy. During this time, Gibson opposed a directive of the CSU’s Business and Finance Vice-Chancellor, Benjamin Quillian, who was attempting to convert a work colleague of 20 years from interim to permanent status. However, the Human Resources Vice-Chancellor, Gail Brooks, ultimately authorized Quillian’s long-time friend’s hire to permanent status. Gibson, over the first part of 2011, then protested Quillian for not having completed the mandated performance evaluations for his staff, for not completing mandated sex harassment training, and for attempting another hire under Quillian without complying with CSU recruitment policies. Shortly thereafter, cuts were made to Gibson’s Human Resource Services staff. After Gibson was removed from a high-profile project directly involving Quillian and his staff in February 2012, Gibson filed a formal Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint under CSU Executive Order 1058. As a result, Brooks placed Gibson on a paid leave, pending investigation. After a four-month investigation, an independent investigator concluded that Gibson had engaged in protected activities, but that Gibson had not suffered any adverse action. One week later, in September 2012, Gibson was terminated from his position. Gibson sued the Trustees of the California State University, Gail Brooks, Benjamin Quillian, and Chancellor Charles Reed. Gibson alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation in violation of California’s Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA § 8547 et seq.) Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Gibson’s annual written performance evaluations were excellent during the 18 years he was employed with the California State University. However, counsel argued that Gibson was terminated from his position because he made various disclosures that were protected. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that when Gibson opposed Quillian’s directive in December 2010, Quillian complained about Gibson to Reed. Counsel contended that Reed then called and “hollered” at Gibson’s direct supervisor, Brooks, accusing Gibson of being a liar. Counsel contended that as a result, Brooks then authorized Quillian’s long-time friend’s hire to permanent status. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that when Gibson further protested Quillian’s actions over the first part of 2011, Quillian and Brooks retaliated against Gibson by orchestrating disproportionate cuts to Gibson’s staff in the Human Resource Services. Counsel also asserted that Quillian and Brooks stirred up and gathered negative comments about Gibson, unbeknownst to him, from his coworkers. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that by December 2011, Brooks recommended to Reed that Gibson be fired, but that Reed wanted to wait. As a result, Brooks removed Gibson from a high-profile project directly involving Quillian and his staff in February 2012. This caused Gibson to file the formal whistleblower retaliation complaint. However, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Brooks then placed Gibson on a paid leave, pending investigation, without stating any performance criticisms to Gibson in writing. Counsel further asserted that Brooks terminated Gibson one week after the CSU adopted the independent investigator’s finding that Gibson had engaged in protected activities, but that Gibson had not suffered any adverse action. The defendants denied Gibson’s claims, asserting that Gibson was terminated for non-retaliatory reasons, including loss of trust and confidence in his leadership., Gibson was 65 years old when he was terminated from his position. He is now 67. Gibson sought recovery of $912,000 in past and future lost earnings based upon his plan to retire at age 71, which was the same plan as Brooks, Quillian and Reed. Gibson also sought recovery of punitive damages, as available under the CWPA, against all of the defendants. (Gibson did not claim any emotional distress damages.)