Facts

Plaintiff Todd Hearn worked as a Lineman for defendant PG&E for 20 years. Plaintiff alleged that between 2016- 2018, he repeatedly reported to his supervisors his belief that the installation of an automatic reclosing device called a "Tripsaver" in high fire areas surrounding Napa posed a danger and safety issue in violation of Cal/OSHA. Following these complaints, PG&E investigated plaintiff and concluded he had violated PG&E's Code of Conduct by misusing company time, misstating his activities and falsifying his timecards on multiple occasions in 2018. In January 2019, after the investigation reports were submitted, plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff sued PG&E for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code 1102.5 and for defamation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff repeatedly reported to PG&E management that the company was improperly and unsafely installing a piece of electrical equipment called a Tripsaver in high fire areas in and around Napa. The Tripsaver device automatically restarts power after an electrical outage, which can start a fire if the electric line sparks in or near dry vegetation. PG&E management ignored Plaintiff's concerns and reports from other Linemen that the equipment was being improperly installed, and continued to install the Tripsaver devices. After the October 2017 wildfires in Napa and the North Bay, PG&E finally began to disable the devices in high-fire areas. PG&E also then launched an investigation into Plaintiff and several other Linemen who had also made safety reports, and ultimately terminated them for purportedly filling out their timecards improperly. Plaintiff presented evidence at trial that he and the other career-long Linemen who were targeted by PG&E for investigation and termination had filled out their timecards in the same manner for decades, and that they had always been given supervisor approval to record their time in the way they did. Plaintiff asserted that PG&E ignored this exculpatory evidence, refused to interview key witnesses during investigation, and failed to use reasonable care to determine whether Plaintiff had actually engaged in any misconduct. Plaintiff asserted that PG&E retaliated against him for making whistleblower safety complaints and that PG&E defamed him by falsely stating that he had falsified his timecards.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: PG&E asserted that plaintiff did not disclose anything that he had reasonable cause to believe was a violation of Cal/OSHA, including any issue he may have raised related to Tripsavers. PG&E expects and encourages employees who work in the field, like plaintiff to speak up about potential safety issues. Indeed, employees who discussed the same things Plaintiff claimed to have "disclosed" still work for PG&E. The difference between Plaintiff and those other employees was that they were not found to have violated the Code of Conduct by engaging in dishonesty. Plaintiff's purported whistleblowing was not a motivating factor in PG&E's decision to terminate his employment, but even if that were not the case, PG&E would have terminated plaintiff anyway. Two investigations substantiated a pattern of misconduct in violation of PG&E's Code of Conduct and, according to PG&E's past practice, warranted termination.

Specials in Evidence

Meds: $341,667 past emotional distress awarded; $258,333 future emotional distress awarded Loe: $922,917 past lost earnings awarded; $637,500 future lost earnings awarded

Result

Verdict for plaintiff for $2,160,417 on defamation claim based on one of four instances. The jury found for defendant on the other claims.

Deliberation

two days

Length

one month