In September 2017, plaintiff Tom Williams, the City Manager for the city of Milpitas, resigned from his position. Prior to his resignation, Williams claimed that he was the target of age-harassing comments since December 2016. He alleged that the comments were made by the newly-elected mayor, Rich Tran, and were directed at his plans to retire. As a result, Williams hired a law firm to pursue a lawsuit against Tran and the city, alleging age discrimination. However, Williams never informed the city attorney about his hiring of an outside firm. Williams then used his city-issued credit card to pay $7,000 in personal legal fees in March 2017. He claimed he hired the law firm to protect employees from Tran, but had entered into a retainer agreement for himself. Williams also attempted to get approval for a $30,000 requisition for his legal expenses, but the city’s finance department rejected it. The finance department then informed the city attorney about the alleged misuse of the city-issued credit card regarding both of the attempted charges. Williams later reimbursed the city the original $7,000, but he was placed on paid administrative leave while the city completed a full investigation. Williams was ultimately found to have utilized city funds for personal purposes, specifically to sue his employer, and was given a notice of intent to terminate. Williams was also offered a Skelly hearing, but on the eve of the hearing, Williams resigned, alleging that he could not receive a fair hearing from the city’s council. Williams filed a complaint against Mayor Rich Tran and the city of Milpitas. Williams alleged that Tran’s actions constituted age discrimination, workplace harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Williams also alleged that the city was liable for Tran’s actions. The matter proceeded to a binding arbitration. Williams claimed that he was the target of age-harassing comments since December 2016 and that Tran directed the comments at his plans to retire. He also claimed that when Tran and the city learned of his intent to file a lawsuit against them, they retaliated against him and forced him to retire early. Defense counsel contended that Williams never reported the alleged ageist remarks for almost four months and that when Williams reported the alleged comments in April 2017, the city promptly hired an independent investigator. Counsel also contended that Williams never followed the city’s established procedures for reporting age-harassing remarks that were directed at him, even though Williams claimed he had verbally reported instances of sex and age harassment against other city employees. Defense counsel asserted that Williams was angered by the press’ reporting of the legal charges and that Williams began harassing the city employees that he suspected of speaking to the press. Counsel contended that by May 2017, the city council had received multiple reports of Williams’ confrontations with several city employees and that as a result, the city council issued a stay-away order, instructing Williams to not physically enter the finance department. Counsel contended that despite the stay-away order, Williams still made three separate visits to the finance department and that once Williams’ actions was discovered, Williams was placed on administrative leave for insubordination. Defense counsel asserted that a separate outside investigator was hired to investigate Williams’ suspected misuse of city money for Williams’ legal charges and that as a result of the investigation’s findings, the city issued a Notice of Intended Discipline to Williams, indicating that it was considering terminating Williams and scheduling a Skelly hearing. City council members testified that they would have considered any exculpatory evidence that Williams was prepared to present and that they had not made up their minds about the termination in advance of the Skelly hearing., Williams claimed he lost wages and benefits as a result of his early resignation. He also claimed she suffered from emotional distress as a result of the events. Williams sought recovery of lost wages and benefits. He also sought recovery of damages for his emotional pain and suffering. In addition, he sought recovery of $1,372 as reimbursement for the use of his cell phone during his time at Milpitas City Hall. Defense counsel contended that Williams never submitted the cell phone fees for reimbursement before the arbitration.