In March 2016, plaintiff Bridget Bryden, a dispatch supervisor, left her job with the city of Santa Barbara. She claimed that she was retaliated against for voicing concerns about dispatcher test scores being reduced for new applicants to increase the number of candidates. She alleged that the retaliation forced her out of her job. Bryden sued the city of Santa Barbara, alleging that the city’s actions constituted whistleblower retaliation and a violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Government Code § 3300, et. seq. She also alleged that, per Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the city’s actions constituted an unconstitutional policy or practice, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment. Bryden claimed that she was retaliated against for voicing concerns to her superior about dispatcher test scores being reduced for new applicants from 90 to 65 to increase the number of candidates because, at the time, the police department had a shortage in dispatchers. She alleged that she believed the reductions to the qualifications posed a health and safety risk to officers in the field and the general public. Bryden claimed that shortly after she raised her concerns, she became the focus of an internal affairs investigation. She alleged that she objected to the investigation and placed her keys and badge on the table. Bryden claimed that she then sought a union representative to discuss the situation and informed the representative that she wanted to keep working, but that when she tried to discuss the matter with the police chief, he canceled the meeting with her and refused to allow her to return to work. Defense counsel denied that Bryden was a whistleblower or that Bryden was terminated from her job. Instead, counsel asserted that when Bryden was notified that she was the subject of an internal affairs investigation, Bryden placed her keys and badge on the table and abruptly quit, abandoning her dispatch post and putting the public at risk., Bryden claimed that she suffered a loss of earnings as a result of being fired. She also claimed she suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incident. Bryden sought recovery of past and future loss of earnings, and damages for her emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Bryden quit, and was not fired, so Bryden was not entitled lost earnings. Counsel also argued that the police department did not retaliate against whistleblowers as part of a pattern and practice, so Bryden was not entitled to recover emotional damages.