In October and November 2009, plaintiff Javier Campos, a Hispanic male and police sergeant, was employed by the Clovis Police Department. He claimed that because he was an advocate for females in the police department and voiced his concerns about how females there were treated, he was retaliated against by not being assigned additional duties. Consequently, in February 2010, Campos and a range master had a short confrontation during a routine gun training exercise and Campos was put on leave. He then underwent three fitness-for-duty exams before he was reinstated in June 2011. In July 2011, Campos sued the city of Clovis and the Clovis Police Department. He alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted disability discrimination, race discrimination and retaliation. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s race discrimination and retaliation claims on summary judgment. Thus, the only claim proceeding to trial was for disability discrimination. Campos claimed that he felt disrespected over the incident with the range master in February 2010, as the range master, a white male subordinate, questioned his technique and allegedly turned and walked away. Campos admitted that he pointed his finger and swore at the range master, but claimed that he approached another range master that was present during the exercise and asked them to address the situation. He further claimed that even though he and the range master said their peace, and agreed to shake hands and leave their confrontation at the range, he was notified the next day that there would be an internal affairs investigation regarding his conduct. However, he claimed that internal affairs only investigated him and that the range master was not subjected an internal affairs investigation. In addition, Campos claimed that the police department said that due to the seriousness of the incident, he would be placed on administrative leave, during which his gun and badge were taken away and he was told he would have to undergo a psychological fitness-for-duty exam. Thus, he contended that the city wrongfully regarded him as mentally unstable and that that this was further shown by the city providing him with worker’s compensation paperwork, sending him Family-and-Medical-Leave-Act paperwork, and notifying him that he was eligible for FMLA leave. He further contended that the city discriminated against him by making him undergo three fitness-for-duty psychological exams before allowing him to return to work. Specifically, Campos claimed that during the first fitness-for-duty exam, the physician, who was employed by the city, found him unfit for duty and said he would require six to nine months of intense psychotherapy. However, Campos disputed the result due to the physician’s employment with the city, and went to a local psychologist for another assessment. He alleged that the outside psychologist found him fit for duty, but that the city would not accept the result and required him to again treat with the city’s physician. Defense counsel contended that Campos was unfit for duty when he was put on leave in February 2010 because he allegedly became enraged during the gun-training exercise. Counsel also contended that Campos pointed his finger in the range master’s face and in the face of another sergeant who witnessed the confrontation. Thus, counsel contended that Campos’ gun and badge were then taken away for his own safety, and for the safety of his colleagues and the public. Defense counsel agreed that the gun-range incident was out of character for Campos, and conceded that Campos never threatened or touched the range master and kept his gun in its holster. Counsel also acknowledged that after the verbal confrontation, Campos and the range master shook hands and promised not to hold a grudge, and the Police Chief testified that Campos showed professionalism and good judgment in de-escalating the incident. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the city denied finding Campos disabled and stated that Campos’ internal affairs investigation was informal, rather than formal., Campos worked for the Clovis Police Department from Sept. 21, 1990, until he resigned from his position on Dec. 12, 2012. During that time, he was put on leave from February 2010 until June 2011. Thus, Campos sought recovery of damages for his loss of benefits and for his pain and suffering due to emotional distress for having to undergo the three separate psychological exams.