In May 2008, plaintiff Fred Mestas, an officer of the Oakland Police Department, was informed that he was being investigated for alleged misconduct concerning a matter that occurred in October 2007. After an Internal Affairs investigation and pre-disciplinary appeal process, Mestas was informed he was being demoted for insubordination on Jan. 24, 2009. He claimed that this was done to create an open position to promote a female sergeant after a separate investigation determined that there was gender discrimination and harassment against her. Mestas sued the city of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department for gender discrimination. The police department was dismissed at the beginning of the case, as the proper defendant was the city. Mestas claimed that he was the victim of unlawful gender discrimination that he did not commit or condone. He stated that he was hired by the Oakland Police Department on Oct. 12, 1977, was promoted to sergeant on Jan. 20, 1990, and then to lieutenant on Aug. 26, 2006. However, he claimed that in 2007, he received a two-day suspension after challenging false allegations of misconduct against him. Mestas claimed that in April 2008, he was successful in proving that discipline was not warranted and that his rights had been violated. He also claimed that he then inquired about any outstanding allegations, and was informed that there were no other charges or allegations of misconduct pending. However, Mestas claimed that in May 2008, he was informed about an investigation regarding misconduct concerning a separate matter in 2007, despite being told that there were no pending charges against him. He alleged that he was subsequently demoted for insubordination in January 2009, but that the real reason for his demotion was so that the city could open a position for a female sergeant who was discriminated against. In addition, Mestas claimed that when he filed a grievance challenging the demotion, he was notified on Dec. 8, 2009, that he would be reinstated to the rank of lieutenant, minus a 30-day suspension based on his length of service with the police department. The city claimed that Mestas was demoted for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Specifically, it presented evidence that Mestas was demoted for insubordination, a significant violation of the department’s manual of rules. Defense counsel contended that insubordination is a very serious offense in a paramilitary organization, such as the Oakland Police Department, and that the pre-disciplinary process culminating in Mestas’ demotion was nearly final prior to the matter arising involving the female sergeant., Mestas sought recovery for the loss of ability to earn post-retirement income from other law enforcement agencies, as well as for his past and future emotional distress. He alleged that the police department’s internal affairs finding of insubordination remained on his record even though his demotion was later reduced to a 30-day suspension. Thus, he claimed that this would affect his chances of obtaining employment at another law enforcement agency after he retired from the Oakland Police Department. Defense counsel argued that Mestas failed to put on any evidence that his post-retirement income would be affected by the demotion, particularly given that he was later reinstated.