On May 27, 2015, plaintiff Michael Tilkey, 52, a field sales leader who oversaw agents at Allstate Insurance Co., was terminated from his position. Tilkey was previously arrested in Arizona, in August 2014, following an argument with his then-girlfriend, who had called the police. During the argument, Tilkey’s girlfriend locked Tilkey out of her house. As a result, Tilkey allegedly started banging on the door so that he could allegedly retrieve his belongings and leave. When the police arrived, they arrested Tilkey for possession of marijuana paraphernalia and two other counts that were “tagged” as “domestic violence” under Arizona law because of the relationship between Tilkey and his now ex-girlfriend. The two “domestic violence” charges were dismissed in January 2015, and a third charge, alleging disorderly conduct with a domestic violence tag, was dismissed about six months later, after Tilkey attended an anger-management course as part of a diversion program. In September 2014, Tilkey’s ex-girlfriend sent him an email at work discussing the criminal case. As a result, Allstate learned of Tilkey’s arrest, as the email was flagged as part of a compliance review for employees who are subject to financial industry regulations. Allstate then began an internal investigation and, in December 2015, Tilkey admitted to the arrest and to his agreement to participate in a diversion program that required him to attend the counseling classes. In March 2015, Allstate’s Human Resources Department concluded that there had been no violation of company policy and that it had no plans for further action. However, that same month, Tilkey’s ex-girlfriend allegedly sent an email to the company leadership, accusing Tilkey of an array of misdeeds during the Arizona incident, and asking for an investigation. Subsequently, Tilkey was fired in May 2015. Allstate claimed that, based on a review of records of his arrest, Tilkey had violated company policy by engaging in threatening behavior that led to his participation in a diversion program. Tilkey sued Allstate Insurance Co. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Allstate violated California Labor Code § 432.7, which prohibits employers from considering arrest records in a decision to fire an employee if the arrest does not result in a conviction and/or participation in a diversion program. Defense counsel contended that Allstate terminated Tilkey’s employment for violating its written policy that calls for immediate termination for threats, or acts of physical harm or violence to the property or assets of the company, or to any person, regardless of whether he or she is employed by Allstate. Counsel argued that Tilkey was an at-will employee, who could be terminated at any time, and that Tilkey had violated Allstate’s policy that allows for the immediate firing of employees “who engage in threats or acts of physical harm or violence.” Defense counsel contended that Tilkey admitted to an Allstate investigator in December 2014 that he had been demanding entry into his girlfriend’s home in the middle of the night by pounding on the door, while she was alone with her grandson, and that he admitted that his girlfriend accused him of breaking a portion of the door. Counsel also contended that during the investigation, Tilkey disclosed his plan to take a plea. Defense counsel further contended that immediately following the girlfriend’s complaint, which she sent in an email to the company in March 2015, Allstate performed an investigation, but that it did not make a conclusion regarding its investigation of Tilkey’s behavior until May 2015. Defense counsel noted that Tilkey pleaded guilty to the domestic violence disorderly conduct charge in January 2015 in exchange for agreeing to participate in a non-violence program as part of a diversion program authorized by Arizona law. However, counsel argued that based on California Supreme Court precedent and the legislative history, California does not recognize the Arizona domestic violence diversion program as a “diversion program” under § 432.7 and, therefore, employers are permitted to rely on the record of referral to, or participation in, the Arizona domestic violence diversion program. Counsel also argued that even if Tilkey could prove that his record of participation into a diversion program was a substantial motivating reason for Allstate’s termination decision, Allstate’s conduct did not violate Labor Code § 432.7 because Tilkey’s guilty plea to domestic violence disorderly conduct was a conviction under the California Labor Code. (Defense counsel noted that Judge Frederic Link on summary judgment that Tilkey’s guilty plea to domestic violence disorderly conduct was a conviction under the California Labor Code.) Thus, defense counsel argued that California Labor Code § 432.7 did not prohibit Allstate from utilizing Tilkey’s record of arrest in employment decisions. In addition, counsel argued that at the time of Tilkey’s termination in May 2015, the domestic violence disorderly conduct charge had not been dismissed yet and that it was not dismissed until months after Allstate terminated Tilkey’s employment., Tilkey had worked for Allstate for almost 30 years and, at the time of his termination, he was responsible for overseeing about 30 independent agents in San Diego, Riverside and Orange counties. Tilkey claimed he could not find other work after his termination, as he would no longer be considered when potential employers learned why he had been fired. Specifically, he claimed that he was compelled to defame himself by telling prospective employers Allstate’s stated reason for terminating him. Thus, Tilkey sought recovery of economic damages for his past and future wage loss, and noneconomic damages for his past and future emotional distress. He also sought recovery for the damage to his reputation and profession, as well as for the alleged shame, mortification and/or hurt feels he had as a result of the termination. In addition, Tilkey sought recovery of punitive damages based on Allstate’s alleged malice, oppression and/or fraud. Defense counsel argued that Allstate’s reason for terminating Tilkey was true, or substantially true, and that Tilkey failed to present evidence that any employer denied him a job offer based on his repeating the statement. Counsel also argued that Tilkey’s damages should have been limited, based on the “after-acquired evidence defense,” which limits relief where, after a termination, the employer learns about an employee’s wrongdoing that would have independently led to the discharge. Defense counsel argued that, in this case, Tilkey allegedly used his Allstate email account to send hundreds of emails that contained pornographic, obscene, offensive, and discriminatory content in violation of Allstate’s policies.