On Dec. 1, 2011, plaintiff Jamie McBride, 47, a Detective II in the Los Angeles Police Department, was presented with a declaration regarding a confidential informant he had worked with for the police department. However, McBride refused to sign the declaration that was presented to him by an assistant United States attorney because McBride believed that multiple statements in the declaration were false and misleading. The assistant U.S. attorney claimed that McBride’s refusal to perjure himself by signing the declaration resulted in the U.S. Attorney’s Office changing its strategy on a significant federal prosecution. McBride claimed that when LAPD Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas learned that he had refused to sign the declaration, he subjected him to an internal affairs investigation. McBride claimed that the point of the investigation was to relieve him of duty as a peace officer and send him to a Board of Rights for termination. He claimed that he was reinstated, but that when he applied for promotions, Villegas restricted him from applying for any supervisory position. McBride sued the Villegas’ employer, the city of Los Angeles. He alleged that Villegas’ actions constituted whistleblower retaliation, in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, and that the city was liable for Villegas’ actions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Villegas had stated that McBride’s refusal to sign the declaration had embarrassed the Los Angeles Police Department and that McBride would have to be “dealt with.” Counsel argued that based on Villegas’s influence, the LAPD, thereafter, used a baseless internal affairs investigation to relieve McBride of duty as a peace officer and send him to a Board of Rights for termination. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that McBride was found not guilty on five out of seven counts at his Board of Rights, received only a 10-day suspension for the two guilty counts, and was reinstated as a Detective II. However, counsel contended that three months after McBride was reinstated, McBride applied for multiple Detective III upgrade positions within the LAPD and was selected to transfer to a Detective Night Watch Supervisor position, but that when Villegas learned that McBride was going to begin working as a detective night watch supervisor and was attempting to promote, Villegas immediately restricted McBride from acting in any supervisory capacity and from working as a detective night watch supervisor. Counsel argued that as a result of Villegas’ actions, McBride was forced to withdraw his applications for the Detective III positions. Counsel also argued that in order to escape Villegas’ authority, McBride was forced to run for election as a union director in the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that McBride was elected to a three-year term as League Director in late 2014. Defense counsel argued that there were legitimate reasons for imposing restrictions on McBride after he won his Board of Rights. Specifically, counsel contended that Villegas was concerned that McBride’s ability to act as a supervisor in dealing with informants might result in events similar to what occurred during the LAPD Rampart scandal in the 1990s., While waiting for his hearing, McBride was relieved of duty without pay for five months. McBride claimed that he suffered from emotional distress as a result of the events that impacted him from Dec. 1, 2011 to January 2015. He also claimed that he developed anxiety, insomnia, and hypothyroidism as a result of the stress he suffered from the events involving Villegas. McBride alleged that he now must take medication for his hypothyroid condition for the rest of his life and that he continues to treat his hypothyroidism with his treating family medicine expert. McBride’s treating family medicine expert opined that stress was a factor in causing McBride’s hypothyroidism. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award McBride $3 million in total damages. According to plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel had an expert jury consultant who helped pick the jury and sat at defense counsel’s table.