On Nov. 19, 2014, Allen Yu, a quality assurance project manager in the Quality Assurance Department of Grifols Biologicals Inc., was terminated from his position. Yu was previously hired by Grifols in April 2011. However, in January 2014, he made an internal complaint to his supervisor about how he believed that Grifols was falsifying documents in violation of federal regulations that led to Grifols making misrepresentations to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Yu again complained about the alleged falsification of documents and alleged misrepresentations to the Food & Drug Administration in March 2014. Yu claimed that his supervisor and other managers working for Grifols knew about his complaints since March 2014 and that he was ultimately terminated from his position on Nov. 19, 2014. Yu sued Grifols Biologicals Inc. for retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 and wrongful termination in violation of public policy as a whistleblower. The matter proceeded to a bifurcated trial. Yu claimed that he saw unlawful, fraudulent activity taking place in the workplace, made internal complaints to his manager, and was unlawfully terminated from his employment by his manager in retaliation for making the complaints. He also claimed that although his department supervisor testified about how his complaints were allegedly investigated by the vice president of Grifols, no investigation ever occurred. Yu further claimed that although he was placed on a 90-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) that was set to expire on Dec. 31, 2014, he was terminated on Nov. 19, 2014, 45-days into the PIP, even though he had indisputably completed at least 5.9 of the 6 items on the PIP. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that by terminating Yu before the deadline of the 90-day PIP, Grifols failed to follow its PIP guidelines or progressive discipline policies. Specifically, counsel contended that Grifols violated its policies in a rush to terminate Yu because Grifols opened a new plant for the purification of intravenous immunoglobin in January 2015, after receiving FDA approval, and that Grifols knew that Yu’s complaints could torpedo the FDA’s approval of the plant if Yu was still working at Grifols. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that by terminating Yu under the pretext of “unsatisfactory performance,” Grifols unlawfully silenced the whistleblower. Counsel further argued that Grifols’ evidence of “unsatisfactory performance” was over-stated and pretextual and that Yu had received “exceeds expectations” on his performance evaluations prior to receiving the PIP, so the issuance of a PIP in Yu’s circumstances violated Grifols’ PIP guidelines. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Grifols had encouraged Yu to “keep barking” at the validation engineers and that it was only when Yu started barking about falsification of documents, which was impacting FDA approval of Grifols’ intravenous immunoglobin facility, that Grifols sought to muzzle Yu. Defense counsel noted that Yu’s department supervisor testified that Yu made serious complaints that were allegedly investigated by Grifols’ vice president and found to be unsubstantiated. Grifols’ human resources director also testified that Yu was placed on a 90-day PIP and that Yu was ultimately terminated because he failed his PIP., Yu claimed that he suffered emotional distress as a result of his termination. As a result, he was treated by a therapist, but was not prescribed medication. (Plaintiff’s counsel did not call Yu’s therapist to testify at trial.) Thus, Yu sought recovery of compensatory damages based on Grifols’ alleged unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination. He also sought recovery of damages for his past emotional distress, which alleged included three years of anxiety, worry, shock, and sleeplessness. The defense’s psychology expert did not examine Yu, but acknowledged in his expert testimony that the termination caused Yu’s emotional distress.