In December 2012, claimants Rhonda Anderson, 55; Felila Toleafoa, 42; Margaret Espinoza, 56; and Rosvida Galindez Penas, 58, interviewed for the position of Executive Secretary to the City Manager. Rachel Currie, 39, also interviewed for the position. They were subsequently interviewed, rated, and ranked by a panel of three individuals, consisting of Steve McHarris, the city of Milpitas Planning Director, Eren Romero from the city of Menlo Park, and Yvonne Galetta from the city of Santa Clara. The three panel members rated and ranked Currie with an overall score of 82.33 out of 100, with a score of 80 to 89 being considered well-qualified. As a result, Currie was selected for the position. However, the other applicants — Anderson, Toleafoa, Espinoza, and Penas — were all ranked well-qualified and received higher rankings than Currie. Thus, they claimed that the city of Milpitas deprived them of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as employees. As a result, they filed a charge of discrimination with the plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the city violated of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. After an investigation, the EEOC entered into a pre-trial conciliation process, which did not produce a resolution. As a result, the EEOC sued the city of Milpitas, alleging violations of the ADEA. The EEOC later filed an amended complaint, dropping Toleafoa’s claims since she was not substantially older than the selectee. The EEOC contended that the city of Milpitas failed to hire qualified applicants over the age of 50 who scored higher in a three-person panel review of applicants than the 39-year-old applicant selected for the position of Executive Secretary to the City Manager. It contended that Anderson, Toleafoa, Espinoza, and Penas were not hired because of their ages. The city denied the allegations, and asserted a non-discriminatory reason for choosing the younger applicant. Specifically, it claimed that Currie had relevant experience and skills that none of the other candidates possessed., The EEOC, on behalf of Anderson, Espinoza, and Penas, sought recovery of back pay, front pay, and liquidated damages.