On April 30, 2009, plaintiff Candace O’Gara, a senior code enforcement and training officer in her 40s, was terminated from her position with the county of Riverside’s Transportation & Land Management Agency division. During her employment since September 2007, O’Gara received complaints from female subordinates regarding harassment at the hands of a supervisor. After experiencing the discriminatory and harassing treatment herself, O’Gara lodged a formal complaint with the county’s Human Resource Manager. In addition to reporting the supervisor’s harassment and discriminatory behavior, O’Gara further advised HR about thefts that she claimed were being perpetrated by the supervisor and members of the department’s Special Enforcement Team, which he supervised. Specifically, O’Gara advised HR that the supervisor and his team were returning to the office with equipment, food and supplies they had stolen from local street vendors, many of whom were undocumented and, therefore, the supervisor and his team often bragged that they were too fearful to report this behavior. O’Gara claimed she was told that the sexual harassment complaint had been investigated and substantiated. To prevent the likely retaliation, she requested and was granted a transfer to a different office. With regard to the theft, however, O’Gara claimed she was told the allegation would be investigated by a third party. After retiring in January 2008, to provide care for her disabled daughter, O’Gara was asked by the department’s then director to return to her position, if only on a part-time, basis. She agreed and in March, and again in September 2008, O’Gara accepted six-month temporary contractual positions, also known as a “TAP” position. In fall 2008, the new division manager requested that O’Gara return to a full-time, permanent position and stated that if she returned to a permanent position within one year of her retirement, her seniority, benefits and retirement would be retroactively reinstated to the original date of her hire. Because the only full-time, permanent senior position would not become vacant until after this deadline, the new division manager proposed, and O’Gara agreed to accept, a temporary demotion to a non-senior position at senior level pay. She was then to be placed into the senior position as soon as it became available in the department’s payroll system. On Feb. 23, 2009, a union representative met with the newly, self-appointed district manager to advise him of several harassment and theft complaints she had been receiving from those she represented. That afternoon, O’Gara was informed that she was being returned to the office of the allegedly harassing supervisor and would be under his supervision, to assist the department with “certain personnel problems” that were occurring at that office. On March 2, 2009, after the self-appointed district manager failed to take responsive action, the union filed a formal complaint on behalf of one of its members with HR. In it, HR was informed that the employees who had been engaging in the illegal behavior learned of the Feb. 23, complaint and, thus, the complainant’s protected activity. In the hope of “keeping his mouth shut,” these employees were physically threatening the complainant with firearms; sitting in front of his home at night and creating an atmosphere of terror. That same day, O’Gara left a voice mail for the division manager advising him of her prior theft and harassment complaint and asking that she remain where she was because she too was fearful of the harassing supervisor and the probable retaliation he would engage in. Form that date forward, O’Gara claimed that all interactions between her, the new division manager and the self-appointed district manager came to an abrupt halt. Two days later, on March 4, 2009, O’Gara was advised that her 2007 theft complaint was finally being investigated. That same afternoon, she received a call from the self-appointed district manager advising her that, contrary to every document she had signed when she accepted the demotion, she had actually been placed in a temporary “companion position.” When asked what he meant, the self-appointed district manager told O’Gara that she would be out of a job once the two code enforcement officers on military leave returned to work. On April 30, 2009, the self-appointed district manager drove to the office where O’Gara was working to personally hand her a notice of termination and walk her out of the office for a final time. O’Gara was subsequently terminated for “probationary reasons.” She claimed she was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for her whistleblower activity. O’Gara sued the county of Riverside, Transportation & Land Management Agency for retaliation under California’s Whistleblower Protection Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act. O’Gara claimed that she was placed in a permanent position in January 2009, as evidenced by the reinstatement of her seniority, benefits, retirement and status as a member of the collective bargaining unit. She asserted that by selecting “probationary reasons” as the basis for her termination, the self-appointed district manager was able to ensure that she would not have any right to appeal the termination and that any future re-hire request would have to be personally approved by him. O’Gara also noted that one of the two employees who was on military leave at the time of the self-appointed district manager’s March 4 phone call, has still not returned to work as of this date. Defense counsel contended that the county put O’Gara in a companion position that was temporary and not permanent, which O’Gara knew. Counsel also contended that the county could not keep O’Gara because of the “Maximum Fill Rate,” or the number of positions they were allowed to fill under the then current budget, and that there were only 135 available positions under the MFR, which were all filled. Plaintiff’s counsel countered the defense claims by presenting the department’s own documents and evidence, which showed that there were 136 available positions. Counsel also asserted that the self-appointed district manager needed only to request to increase the MFR and that every time he had made such a request, it had been granted without question. Plaintiff’s counsel also noted that as an example, the self-appointed district manager requested, and was granted, authority to place himself in the department’s highest paid position, that of district manager, and to hire two additional aides for his use., O’Gara sought recovery for past economic damages. She also sought recovery of future economic damages, but the judge refused. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the judge erroneously ruled that the plaintiff could not ask for future economic damages because she would have to present an economist.