In March 2010, plaintiff Patrick Shields, 52, an executive manager of operations for Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a public utility agency, allegedly refused a request by a sitting member of the board of directors to participate in an activity. Shields claimed that as a result, he was subject to demotions and inappropriate performance evaluations during the subsequent two years. He was eventually terminated from his position in March 2012. Shields sued Inland Empire Utilities Agency, alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, violations of the Labor Code, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy for a protected activity (whistleblowing). The matter only continued on the Labor Code and whistleblower causes of action. Shield claimed that his position made him a member of the senior executive team and that a sitting member of the board of directors requested that he participate in an illegal activity. He claimed that as part of an adverse action due to his refusal to participate in the illegal activity, a newly hired general manager violated company policy and failed to comply with company practices regarding his evaluation. Thus, Shield claimed that he received his first ever poor performance evaluation, which eventually led to his termination in March 2012. Defense counsel denied that the requested activity was illegal or that Shields was requested to participate in that alleged activity. Counsel also argued that Shields was an at-will employee, which gave the utility agency the right to terminate Shields without cause, which it did. Thus, defense counsel argued that Shields’ termination had nothing to do with his alleged refusal to participate in an activity., Shields ultimately found new employment, doing the same type of work, about 13 months after his termination. However, he claimed that when he was hired at his new job, he was no longer eligible for the same retirement benefits due to changes in California’s Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). Thus, Shields claimed that due to the CalPERS changes, he lost $2.6 million in retirement benefits due to his termination. Defense counsel contended that Shields was provided with a generous, one-year severance package and that there were no adverse actions taken against Shields, regardless of whether or not he was asked to participate in the alleged activity.