On July 22, 2002, plaintiff Alma Burrell, 55, an African-American program manager for the Santa Clara Public Health Department, was notified that her position was being reclassified from Program Manager I to Health Care Program Manager II. Previously in 2002, the county of Santa Clara hired a consultant to study classifications of mid-level managers throughout the county’s Health and Hospital System. As a result, Burrell’s position changed. Burrell, who had worked for the Santa Clara Public Health Department since 1998, disagreed with her classification as a Health Care Program Manager II, instead of being classified as a Senior Health Care Program Manager. Between 2006 and 2010, Burrell was not promoted. As a result, on Oct. 26, 2010, Burrell filed a charge of racial discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, specifically because she was not promoted on Sept. 3, 2010. Burrell, as well as two other black employees with the Public Health Department, plaintiffs Vickye Hayter and Margaret Headd, sued the county of Santa Clara and members of the Public Health Department Executive Management team, including Public Health Department Director Dan Peddycord, Rae Wedel and Marty Fenstersheib. Burrell, Hayter and Headd brought 10 causes of action against the defendants, including claims of discrimination, disparate treatment and disparate impact, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and retaliation for exercise of free speech in violation of their civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. The court granted the county’s motion for summary judgment as to all causes of action by Hayter and Headd. In addition, the only causes of action that survived summary judgment were Burrell’s claims against the county of discrimination (disparate treatment) and failure to prevent discrimination. Although the court found that the only promotion at issue was the failure to promote Burrell in 2010, the court allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence dating back to 2002. Burrell claimed that after her reclassification in 2002, her manager claimed that Wedel had allegedly stated that Burrell had “not paid [her] dues” and was “moving up too fast.” Burrell also claimed that when she asked her manager if Wedel’s comments had to do with her race, her manager allegedly replied that she certainly hoped race was not a factor in Wedel’s assessment. Burrell further claimed that around 2006, she spoke again with her manager and expressed interest in a Senior Health Care Program Manager position, which included responsibility over the HIV/AIDS program, but on Jan. 28, 2008, a Public Health Department employee was transferred to a Senior Health Care Program Manager position after his previous Senior Health Care Program Manager position was deleted due to budget cuts. She contended that when she discussed the position with the Public Health Department Director, she learned that the position was filled and that the only other available Senior Health Care Program Manager position was deleted due to budget cuts. Thus, Burrell claimed that she believed she did not get the position because of her race. In 2008, Burrell’s manager suggested that she apply to be reclassified from Health Care Program Manager II to Senior Health Care Program Manager. As a result, in July 2008, Burrell submitted an application for reclassification, and the manager reviewed and signed the form to forward to the county’s Employee Services Agency for processing. However, on Oct. 3, 2008, Burrell was notified that her request for reclassification was denied. After the senior human resources analyst told Burrell that about the denial, the analyst met with Burrell again on Oct. 16, 2008, to discuss the promotion denial with her and her union representative. However, Burrell claimed that the denial of her reclassification was based on her race, alleging that the analyst did not conduct any investigation into the position before denying her request. Specifically, she claimed that the analyst denied speaking with anyone in Public Health Department administration and declined her request to perform a desk audit. Burrell further contended that she supported Hayter’s attempt to be reclassified from a Public Health Nurse II position to a Public Health Nurse III position, but Hayter’s application was denied on April 10, 2008. However, Burrell claimed that her manager told her that she would be looked upon unfavorably if she continued to support Hayter and then removed her responsibility over the Maternal Child and Adolescent Health program in 2009 in retaliation of her support of Hayter’s application. Burrell contended that this retaliation interfered with her own chances to be reclassified. In addition, Burrell claimed that she met with her new manager in February 2010 to discuss a plan to increase her scope of work and, in March 2010, met with the Public Health Department Director, Peddycord, and her new manager again to propose bringing all the Maternal Child and Adolescent Health programs together, including the Adolescent Family Life Program. She claimed that Peddycord told her that he liked her proposal, but that he left decisions about promotions up to his managers. Burrell claimed that she again met with Peddycord in September 2010, this time to request that she be promoted to Senior Health Care Program Manager, but that Peddycord told her that she would not be promoted because she had not been engaged in a significant Public Health Department event, mentioning her lack of participation in influenza A (H1N1), also known as swine flu, activities as an example. Burrell claimed that she told Peddycord that she had been on medical leave and that when she returned, she was prohibited from participating in H1N1 outreach. She alleged that as a result, Peddycord promised to get back to her in two weeks and told her that he would “keep [her] in the forefront of [his] mind.” However, Burrell claimed that shortly after the September 2010 meeting, she learned that an individual, who had been working out of class for six months filling in for a Senior Health Care Program Manager who went out on medical leave and then passed away, had been promoted to the Senior Health Care Program Manager position. She alleged that as a result, she was denied a promotion because the position had not been posted on the transfer line. Defense counsel noted that the Public Health Department employee was transferred into the Senior Health Care Program Manager position on Jan. 28, 2008, when his own Senior Health Care Program Manager position was deleted due to budget cuts. Counsel contended that under the county’s labor agreement with the union and its merit system rules, the employee had the right to “bump” the manager with less seniority and transfer into the position. Counsel also contended that after the senior human resources analyst told Burrell that her request to be promoted was denied, the analyst met with Burrell and Burrell’s union representative to discuss the promotion denial, but that Burrell got angry with her and the union representative after they tried to explain why she was properly classified. The analyst claimed that she denied speaking with anyone in the Public Health Department administration and declined Burrell’s request to perform a desk audit because she already had sufficient information to determine whether Burrell was properly classified. However, the analyst claimed that Burrell still asked her to provide a written explanation of her decision to deny the reclassification request and, on Nov. 3, 2008, Burrell was provided a written response that stated that she was properly classified as a Health Care Program Manager II based on her breadth of responsibility, independent judgment, program knowledge, supervision exercised and supervision received. In addition, the county’s human resources director testified at trial that neither the county’s merit system rules nor the county’s contract with Burrell’s union required that the position after the September 2010 meeting between Burrell and Peddycord be posted. Moreover, defense counsel contended that Burrell admitted that the individual who was promoted to the Senior Health Care Program Manager position after having filled in for the prior manager for six months had more experience in the areas relevant to the position and that Burrell had told the individual that she would not have wanted the individual’s job., Burrell claimed emotional distress as a result of the alleged discrimination. She also claimed approximately $170,000 in past and future loss of income as a result of not getting the promotion. In addition, Burrell sought recovery of $3 million in damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel noted that Burrell failed to offer evidence of past and future medical expenses at trial. Counsel also noted that Burrell had hypertension and acid reflux that was diagnosed before the alleged failure to promote her in 2010. She then began seeing a therapist and a psychiatrist in late 2012, and reported to her providers that she had an ongoing discrimination lawsuit against the county and that she was experiencing stress from attending depositions for the case. However, defense counsel contended that Burrell told her providers that her grandson died shortly after his birth in October 2012 and that her daughter had to move in with her because the grandson’s father was hospitalized due to his bipolar disorder. Counsel further contended that Burrell also told one of her therapists that she intended to retire from the county as soon as her case was over.