On Dec. 4, 2006, plaintiff Robert Sallustio, 28, the Regional Head of Claims for Kemper Independence Insurance Co., was terminated from his employment. Prior to Mr. Sallustio’s termination, the Regional Vice President of Marketing, Alan Kikuyama, attempted to terminate Mr. Sallustio’s former wife, Nancy Sallustio, who worked in the marketing department. Mr. Sallustio believed that Kikuyama was attempting to get rid of Ms. Sallustio because Kikuyama was annoyed by her crying, which was initially caused by some alleged stress disabilities due to her divorce. As a result, Mr. Sallustio confronted Kikuyama and told him to stop chastising his former wife about the symptoms of her alleged disability. Following the confrontation, Kikuyama to Kemper’s Human Resources Department and spoke with Scott Tomlinson, the Vice President of Human Resources, and Christine Doherty, the Director of Human Resources. Doherty then met with Ms. Sallustio on May 3, 2006, and was intending to offer her a termination agreement. However, during the meeting, Ms. Sallustio claimed that Kikuyama was discriminating against her because of her disability and previous disability leave. She alleged that Kikuyama was shunning her and targeting her for termination because of her disability. Admittedly, no investigation was started following the meeting, and Kikuyama was not talked to regarding the reports of disability discrimination and harassment. In June 2006, Ms. Sallustio took a second leave of absence from work, claiming it was because of Kikuyama’s continued treatment of her. She then sought an accommodation of working from home, like 12 of 13 other marketing representatives, but Kikuyama allegedly refused. Instead, Tomlinson and Doherty tried to convince Ms. Sallustio to take a severance and leave, but Mr. Sallustio opposed the offer made to his former wife. When Nancy’s disability payments ran out in mid-October 2006, she informed human resources that she was going to return to work. However, human resources and Kikuyama were in the process of filling Ms. Sallustio’s position. When Mr. Sallustio learned of this, he again protested and took action to keep his former wife’s position open for her return by offering the person set to fill Ms. Sallustio’s position with a promotion to stay in claims. Mr. Sallustio was ultimately successful, and the claims person rejected the marketing position and accepted the claims promotion. The next day, on Nov. 7, 2007, Kikuyama complained to human resources that Robert Sallustio was never around in the morning for the last five or six months. As a result, an investigation was opened up against Mr. Sallustio and was conducted by Tomlinson and Doherty. Tomlinson then went to Mr. Sallustio’s boss, Brian Delfino, the Vice President of Claims, and asked him to join the investigation team, which Delfino did. In mid-November 2006, Coy Jacobs, the technical claims manager and second in command in claims under Mr. Sallustio, reported to Tomlinson and Delfino that Mr. Sallustio was hardly around for the last 18 months, only sporadically showing up less than 15 to 20 hours per week, and that Mr. Sallustio was otherwise unavailable. Mr. Sallustio claimed that soon after returning from that meeting, Jacobs’ attitude toward him significantly changed. On Dec. 4, 2006, without ever being shared anything about the investigation or the complaints, Mr. Sallustio was terminated for not being at work or being available to his employees. The day after his termination, Mr. Sallustio’s former wife attempted to return to work with a doctor’s note, which stated she was allowed to return. However, Kemper’s Human Resources Department told her the position was filled. Mr. Sallustio sued Kemper Independence Insurance Co., Unitrin Kemper Auto and Home Insurance, Kikuyama, Delfino, Tomlinson, and Jacobs. Mr. Sallustio alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted defamation, retaliation and wrongful termination. Unitrin Kemper Auto and Home Insurance, Delfino and Tomlinson were ultimately let out of the case. In addition, Mr. Sallustio’s retaliation and wrongful termination causes of action were removed from the case, just before trial, by summary adjudication. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Kikuyama wanted to get rid of Mr. Sallustio’s former wife because her crying annoyed him, and that since Kikuyama was the rainmaker for the western region — the most profitable region of the company — Tomlinson and Doherty worked with him to encourage Ms. Sallustio to leave. Counsel asserted that as a result, Doherty met with Ms. Sallustio in May 2006 with a plan to offer a termination agreement and that Doherty’s notes revealed that he and Kikuyama planned to tell Ms. Sallustio that if she did not comply with their written termination strategy, Kikuyama was going to set, what Tomlinson and Doherty believed to be, unobtainable goals for Ms. Sallustio, if she tried to remain. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Kemper’s termination plan got a little off track when Ms. Sallustio disclosed to Doherty that Kikuyama was discriminating against her because of her disability and previous disability leave. Counsel contended that Tomlinson’s and Doherty’s response to Ms. Sallustio’s complaint was inaction, as they admitted that no investigation was started and that Kikuyama was not even talked to regarding the undisputable reports of disability discrimination and harassment. In addition, counsel contended that the objectionable treatment by Kikuyama continued. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that when Ms. Sallustio went out on a second leave in June 2006, Kikuyama refused her request for an accommodation of working from home and that human resources again took no action, even though this accommodation should have been given. Counsel also argued that when Nancy’s disability payments ran out in mid-October 2006, and she informed Kemper that she was going to return to work, human resources and Kikuyama blocked her return by attempting to fill her position with a claims person who had no marketing experience. Counsel contended that this caused Mr. Sallustio to again protest and to take action to keep his former wife’s position open by offering the claims person a promotion to stay in claims. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that as a result of Mr. Sallustio’s protests and actions, Kikuyama defamed Mr. Sallustio to human resources on Nov. 7, 2007, by claiming that Mr. Sallustio was never around in the morning. Counsel contended that as a result, Kikuyama caused an investigation to be opened up and conducted by Tomlinson and Doherty, who at that point had been assisting Kikuyama for six months to prevent Ms. Sallustio’s return. Counsel further contended that Tomlinson defamed Mr. Sallustio to Delfino that same day and asked Delfino to join the so called “investigation team.” In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Jacobs, who wanted Mr. Sallustio’s position and saw Kikuyama’s attack on Mr. Sallustio as an opportunity to open up the position, embellished upon Kikuyama’s defamation and published to Tomlinson and Delfino further defamation. Counsel noted that Mr. Sallustio had been mentoring Jacobs to take a regional claims position and that until the economic impact of a divorce made Mr. Sallustio’s early retirement impossible, Jacobs was looking forward to either replacing Mr. Sallustio in a few years or taking a similar position in Spokane (a location Jacob’s wife admittedly did not want to move to). However, counsel contended that notes of Jacobs’ interview in mid-November 2006 reflect that Jacobs admitted he was “throwing [Mr. Sallustio] under the bus” and that Jacobs’ attitude significantly changed soon after returning from defaming Mr. Sallustio, including telling Mr. Sallustio, “I didn’t get my MBA to be your technical claims manager for the next nine years.” Thus, counsel argued that Mr. Sallustio was terminated without ever being shared anything about the investigation or the complaints against him. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that after Mr. Sallustio’s termination, human resources falsely told Mr. Sallustio’s former wife that her position was filled and that Kemper allegedly tried to support this misstatement by altering the documents, which were later presented to the jury. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the records produced in discovery showed that the real date Ms. Sallustio was replaced was two days after her attempt to return and reclaim her position, but that the date was altered to indicate it was filled the day before her return. Plaintiff’s counsel also presented evidence at trial that showed that Mr. Sallustio was an excellent, dedicated, hard-working employee. Counsel contended that, in fact, Mr. Sallustio worked 50 to 60 hours per week and that Mr. Sallustio had done so for the last 28 years. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the region was having its best results ever and it was Kemper’s most profitable, handling 22,000 new claims per year, with Mr. Sallustio expertly overseeing $466 million in claims that year. Counsel argued that although Mr. Sallustio supervised 85 people and was required to frequently communicate with his regional manager peers across the county, corporate line managers, vendors, claimants, and attorneys, there was not a single word of criticism about his performance, attendance, or availability by anyone prior to Kemper’s defamation of him. Counsel further argued that “the bogus investigation led by Tomlinson” never interviewed Mr. Sallustio or alerted Mr. Sallustio to the fact that there were any accusations against him, despite Kemper’s policy for a fair and thorough investigation. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that, actually, the investigation confirmed that everyone loved Mr. Sallustio and that there was “incredible respect” from the 85 people he supervised. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the investigation did not speak to anyone other than Kikuyama, whose discrimination Mr. Sallustio opposed; Jacobs, who wanted Mr. Sallustio’s job; and Jacobs’ friend, who was afraid that Mr. Sallustio was going to terminate her for attempting to terminate another disabled claims employee for using paid time off. Delfino claimed that when he was asked to join the investigation of Mr. Sallustio, he was “shocked and surprised” by the accusations. He claimed he had known Mr. Sallustio for 20 years and that Mr. Sallustio was a great manager, hard-working, and well-respected. As Mr. Sallustio’s direct supervisor for the 11 months prior to his termination, Delfino claimed that he had “frequent contact,” and was very familiar with, Mr. Sallustio’s work and that only four months earlier, he had given Mr. Sallustio “exceeds expectations” in all areas of his performance review. Delfino further claimed that he “saw no red flags” in Sallustio’s excellent performance that would have indicated any problem. He also claimed he was not aware of anyone else doing Mr. Sallustio ‘s work and he had no problems communicating with Mr. Sallustio. However, Delfino alleged that his actual observations and experience were ignored by the investigation team. In addition, he alleged that telephone logs, key card records, computer logs, Mr. Sallustio’s monthly reports, and claims software usage records were all good sources of objective verifiable evidence of Mr. Sallustio’s attendance, but that the investigators did not bother to look at those, despite the policy to do a fair and thorough investigation. Kikuyama and Jacobs testified that they were friends with Mr. Sallustio and that they would golf, play poker, and have dinners together, in addition to their families vacationing together. However, they admitted that they never mentioned any attendance or availability issues to Mr. Sallustio prior to his termination. Defense counsel argued that Mr. Sallustio was properly terminated for not showing up for work for 18 months, except for random and sporadic times that totaled 15 to 20 hours per week, and that no one knew where he was or could get in touch with him. Counsel contended that the actual reason for Mr. Sallustio’s terrible attendance was that he was having a “midlife crisis.” Kikuyama claimed that evidence of Mr. Sallustio’s midlife crisis included Mr. Sallustio purchasing several new items, such as sunglasses, a pair of shoes and a Porsche. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the “new” Porsche was actually a “used” vehicle and was purchased by Mr. Sallustio in order to replace the over-four-year-old Porsche that he let his former wife keep following their divorce. Counsel further argued that no defense witness could identify a single day that Mr. Sallustio was not in the office for an improper, unjust reason, instead of being out of the office to perform his duties by either working outside of the office — locally, in the 13-state western region, or at the Jacksonville, Fla., home office — or because of an authorized vacation or personal time off., Robert Sallustio claimed that as a result of his termination, he suffers a loss of earnings and emotional distress. Thus, he sought recovery of past and future loss of wages and recovery of damages for his emotional distress.