In May 2008, plaintiffs John Danner, Donald Durkee, Stephen Engler, Carlos Hoy, Alfred Joe, Mark Kane, Rohan Knight, Roberto Lucha, Eli Payton, Robert Mateik, John Shanley, Eric Tanimura, Paul Urquiaga, Vincent Wong, Raycardo Aviles, Gideon Price, John Tuiasosopo and Richard Cotton, all current or former firefighters for the city of San Francisco, took a promotional exam offered by the San Francisco Fire Department for the position of H-20 Lieutenant. The exam had not been given since 1997. Prior to taking the exam, potential applicants were first given unofficial notice about the exam in September 2007, at the monthly meeting of San Francisco Firefighters Local 798. They were told that the exam would be administered in the near future, in early spring 2008, but that the exact date and type of testing was unknown at that time. The firefighters claimed that they believed that the examination would be oral because past exams were oral. On Feb. 4, 2008, a new training manual was issued and, on Feb. 15, 2008, became the standard operating procedure for the department. Firefighters submitted applications for the exam from March 28, 2008, through April 11, 2008. On April 18, 2008, the department released the preparation manuals for the first portion of the exam, indicating that the exam would be written. Thus, firefighters claimed that the 2008 exam discriminated against exam takers over the age of 40. In addition, they claimed that the 2008 exam had numerous flaws, and one of the firefighters claimed that when he complained about the exam and the exam process, he was retaliated against. John Danner, Donald Durkee, Stephen Engler, Carlos Hoy, Alfred Joe, Mark Kane, Rohan Knight, Roberto Lucha, Eli Payton, Robert Mateik, John Shanley, Eric Tanimura, Paul Urquiaga and Vincent Wong sued the city and county of San Francisco, the San Francisco Fire Department, the San Francisco Fire Commission and the Civil Service Commission of San Francisco. The firefighters alleged that the defendants’ actions in giving the exam constituted age discrimination, as well as constituted a failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. Engler and Shanley were later removed from the case, while Aviles, Price, Tuiasosopo and Cotton were added as plaintiffs. In addition, David Johnson, the Principal Personnel Analysis in charge of the Examination Unit that created, administered, and scored the exam, as well as who oversaw the exam, was added as a defendant, but was later let out of the case. At trial, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that firefighters believed that the examination would be oral because the latest two captains exams given in late 2006 and/or early 2007 were oral; the latest battalion chief exam given in early 2008 was oral; the pre-examination negotiations required that exams for supervisory positions be oral, including the 1994 and 1997 lieutenant exams; and oral exams for supervisory firefighter positions was, and is, the national standard. Counsel also contended that after investing up to two years preparing for an oral exam, firefighters were only told that it would be a written exam with 30 days’ notice or less. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that a written exam diminished the chances of firefighters over the age of 40 from performing well because they were trained in, and had been using, verbal methods to communicate fire-ground tactics and communications for years. Counsel contended that firefighters trained after the 1990s were required to work in either the radio dispatch office for one year and/or perform ambulance duty for a minimum of one year before being given a permanent position. Counsel contended that the change was following a national trend, and due to the Department of Public Health and the San Francisco Fire Department agreeing to merge in an effort to achieve better and faster deployment of emergency medical services, as well as to create a signal call and dispatch system for fire and Emergency Medical Services, as mandated by voters in the general election on June 7, 1994. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that those firefighters that were trained after the 1990s wrote numerous reports regarding the emergency calls they took daily and that in writing the reports, they gained experience in using medical terms of art and gained experience summing up situations and abbreviating oral intake into written form. However, counsel contended that firefighters who entered the department prior to 1997 did not receive this training/experience. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the 2008 exam consisted of two parts, with part one being broken up into a morning session and an afternoon session, and part two being administered at various times from Aug. 22, 2008, to Aug. 24, 2008 to each taker that had passed part one of the exam. However, part one had five sections and required the exam taker to score a minimum of 500 points in order to proceed to sections two and three. In addition, although there were four different versions of part one of the exam, 50 points were automatically deducted from the score of each afternoon session exam taker, as the San Francisco Fire Department assumed the morning exam takers would pass along information to the afternoon exam takers. However, many exam takers had to work a 24-hour shift that ended at 8 a.m. on date of part one of the 2008 exam. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that those who did not work a 24-hour shift (or longer) and were able to take part one of the exam during the morning session had an advantage over others. Counsel further argued that other unfair advantages occurred when the list of key words and phrases used in creating the answer key was leaked after a firefighter lifted the list that an assistant deputy chief negligently left on his desk; when higher-ups in the department intentionally leaked information to “legacies” and younger firefighters that they wanted to place high on the eligibility list; and when the raw scores on the exam were adjusted depending on the identity of the exam taker. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that there were also other flaws with the 2008 exam. Counsel contended that one such flaw was that the exam addressed the standard operating procedure from the new manual, which was not implemented until after the exam, so firefighters were still being trained on the old standard operating procedure at the time of the exam. Plaintiffs’ counsel further contended that in addition to other flaws, the exam was not uniform; the format did not allow exam takers to have enough space to answer the questions adequately; changes were made to the exam on the day it was given; the exam was not sufficiently job-related; and the scores were changed by city officials, in secret, without consulting experts who prepared the key. Defense counsel contended that one of the reasons for switching from an oral exam to a written one was due to the costs to administer the test to the approximate pool of 800 applicants., The plaintiff firefighters claimed they suffered lost earnings as a result of missed promotions. Of the 15 plaintiff firefighters, 12 still work in the department. Thus, they sought recovery in the form of unspecified damages.