On the morning of March 27, 2009, plaintiff Andrew MacDonald, 45, an award winning visual effects artist, was terminated from employment by Ascent Media Group, a creative and technical media company for the entertainment industry. The night before he was terminated, MacDonald complained to a senior executive at Ascent that he had heard sounds in the company restroom that he believed indicated that the creative director of his department was using cocaine at work. Thus, he claimed that he was fired in retaliation for his complaint. MacDonald sued Ascent Media Group Inc.; Ascent Media Group LLC; Method Studios; and Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. The parties stipulated that Ascent Capital Group Inc., the successor to Ascent Media Group Inc., would be responsible for all damages from all defendants if the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The parties further stipulated and agreed, and the jury was instructed, that each of the other defendants should be treated as one entity, called Ascent Media Group, during the trial, and that there should be no differentiation between the defendants for attributing liability. Thus, MacDonald alleged at trial that he was wrongfully terminated by Ascent Media Group in violation of public policy for reporting the drug use of his boss. MacDonald claimed that his boss was the creative face of Ascent, was responsible for the company’s lucrative client relationships, and was heavily involved in a corporate merger that Ascent was in the process of completing. MacDonald alleged that he was terminated by Ascent because the company wanted to protect the creative director’s reputation and employment, so that the merger could be successful. Thus, he claimed that Ascent took various steps, including conducting a biased internal investigation of the creative director, aimed at covering up any alleged drug use in the office. MacDonald further claimed that he was terminated because he was the most senior employee to complain about the creative director’s alleged drug use, and because his complaints could have resulted in the failure of the corporate merger. Ascent denied having any interest in protecting the creative director, as demonstrated by the fact that it had already demoted the creative director prior to terminating MacDonald and by terminating the creative director for various management flaws just a few months later. Ascent also argued that the merger occurred prior to MacDonald’s termination, so it could not have played a role in the company’s decision to terminate him. It further denied that its internal investigation was biased, arguing that it interviewed multiple employees, none of whom claimed to have ever witnessed the creative director using drugs, and that even so, it issued the creative director a formal warning based on the allegations alone. However, Ascent claimed that MacDonald’s complaints about his boss were motivated by a longstanding rivalry between the two and by MacDonald’s desire to have his boss’ position as lead creative director. Ascent contended that it terminated MacDonald because he told one of the company’s senior executives and assistant general counsel, “I have a Quicktime videotape of [the creative director] doing drugs in the bathroom stall and I have several audio recordings of my conversations with [a senior executive].” Ascent claimed MacDonald did this without either person’s knowledge or consent, and that MacDonald threatened to put the video on YouTube. Thus, it argued that MacDonald violated the privacy of its employees by videotaping and audiotaping them, and that it was concerned about the illegality of MacDonald’s actions and the privacy of its employees. MacDonald denied videotaping his boss or making any comments about disseminating a videotape of the creative director to the public. Instead, he claimed that when Ascent did not take his report of his boss’ drug use seriously, he responded out of frustration, “What do you need me to do to prove it to you, videotape it?”, MacDonald sought recovery of damages, including roughly $300,000 for his past loss of earnings, $125,000 for his future loss of earnings, and an unspecified amount for the emotional distress he claimed he suffered as a result of his termination. He further sought recovery of punitive damages, claiming Ascent acted maliciously. Defense counsel argued that MacDonald failed to mitigate his alleged damages because, rather than trying to find a job at another established post-production employer, MacDonald started his own company after he was terminated.