In 2002, plaintiff Jamil Carter, a 40-year-old female of African American and American Indian descent, joined the San Jose Police Department. In January 2011, she applied to work in the airport division at the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. However, she claimed that Sergeant Keith Cottrell tried to dissuade her from taking the oral examination for the position and that Lieutenant Michael Sullivan, who was in charge of the exam/interview, yelled at her and pounded on the table. Carter purportedly failed the exam that was held on Feb. 8, 2011. Carter claimed a fellow officer told her that she had a right to a union representative in case of controversy. As a result, she complained about her treatment at the exam to the head of the Black Police Officers’ Association and further obtained assistance from the head of the Latino Police Officers’ Association. The Chief of Police was then contacted by the associations and it was determined that the test was subjective. Thus, the Chief of Police overturned the decision not to transfer Carter to the airport. However, after Carter joined the airport division in March 2011, she claimed she was subjected to racial and gender discrimination by being denied the opportunity to obtain overtime on several occasions. Carter sued the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, Sullivan and Cottrell. Carter alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted racial and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation under Federal and State statutes. Carter alleged that she was the only African American female officer hired and retained by the SJPD since 2002. She also alleged that the police force had no females in the Chair of Command and had been the subject of recent adverse publicity about women leaving the force in disproportionate numbers. Carter claimed that although her performance reviews at the department always met the standard, including many “Above Standard” and “Exceptional” ratings, especially in the reliability, teamwork, and customer service categories most needed at the airport, Cottrell yelled at her, hung up on her twice, and tried to dissuade from her applying for airport position or even take the exam. She also claimed that Cottrell and Sullivan failed to supply her with all of the necessary materials for the oral exam, even after they kept her waiting for 45 minutes. She further claimed that Sullivan, who was in charge of the exam/interview, yelled at her and pounded on the table during the exam/interview. Carter claimed she was further discriminated against when she applied for an overtime position based on her rank, in a seniority system to assign overtime. She claimed the system was created by Cottrell and Sullivan, who retaliated against her for violating the “chain of command” when she complained to the Chief of Police, even though the SJPD retaliation and discrimination regulations encouraged going outside the chain of command. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Cottrell and Sullivan employed a “Matrix system” to determine seniority and that this system was weighed in favor of males by giving credit for being trained in AR-15 assault rifles, for which an officer had to be invited to train and for which 36 males and only 2 females on the Matrix list possessed the right certifications. Counsel also contended that there were only 5 women listed in the top 100 spots on the Matrix and that there were only 15 women listed on the bottom 100 spots on the Matrix. Carter claimed that no credit was given to language fluency, even though she used her Spanish every day at the airport, and that the SJPD made a mistake on her most recent evaluation at the airport, which deprived her of a point on the Matrix spreadsheet. However, she claimed that the Matrix was so heavily weighted in seniority that she could not possibly break into the top 100 even if she had perfect scores on all evaluations throughout her nine-year career. Thus, Carter claimed that Cottrell and Sullivan employed the Matrix system to exclude her from being able to obtain overtime. Carter further claimed that after joining the airport division, she was subjected to additional discrimination when white officers repeatedly stole or hid her battery, and when she overheard airport officers saying, “Let’s get rid of her.” She also claimed that male officers, supposedly on duty, committed time-card fraud and went to local San Jose Vietnamese coffee houses with scantily clad women servers, and then pressured her not to “snitch” on them. Thus, she claimed that the defendants’ conduct created a hostile work environment from March 2010 through June 2011. In addition, Carter claimed that after her and several other officers turned in their badges, she learned that hers was destroyed and she was denied the opportunity to obtain another badge for months, even though 11 male employees who left on the same day did not have their badges destroyed and were allowed to go back to the airport to pick up the airport security badges that they had turned in to obtain overtime pay. Thus, she claimed she was subjected to further discrimination by being denied the opportunity to obtain overtime work due to her badge being destroyed. Defense counsel denied Carter’s allegations, arguing that Carter was not discriminated against. Cottrell admitted that he contacted Carter prior to the exam and told her that she was a marginal employee who was “high maintenance,” and Sullivan claimed that Carter failed the exam because she provided bizarre responses to two out of the five questions. Defense counsel further contended that, in regards to Carter obtaining an overtime position based on her rank in the seniority system, Carter was ranked 229 out of 249 applicants. In addition, counsel contended that Carter’s badge was destroyed after she voluntarily left her position at the airport because Carter no longer had an operational need for the badge., Carter sought $1 in nominal damages, roughly $82,000 in past lost overtime, roughly $120,000 in future lost overtime, and an unspecified amount of damages for her emotional distress. Carter also sought recovery of punitive damages, which would have been decided at a later phase. Defense counsel argued that zero damages should be awarded to Carter.