In 2013, plaintiff Michael Naylor, 47, a former Air Force Combat Controller, applied for a position as a 911 dispatcher with the city of Burbank. After completing a written test and undergoing an outside panel interview, Naylor was notified that he had the highest written test score and was ranked number one after consideration of his Veterans’ Preference Points, which the Department of Labor uses so that disabled veterans who served in active duty in the Armed Forces during certain specified time periods, or in military campaigns, are entitled to preference over others being hired for virtually all federal government jobs. Naylor then received a letter from the city of Burbank stating that he was eligible for hire in order of test score and rank. (Burbank acknowledged that it was the city’s practice and policy to hire the most qualified candidates for available positions.) Naylor was then subjected to a departmental interview staffed by a Burbank police captain, a Burbank police lieutenant, and a civilian manager from the Burbank Police Department. During that interview, Naylor was asked questions about his ability to work with females. He claimed that he specifically asked if he was able to “work with difficult women” and “difficult female supervisors.” After the departmental interview, Naylor received a telephone phone call from the Burbank police lieutenant who sat on the departmental interview panel. Naylor claimed that during this phone call, he was told that he had been reduced in hiring eligibility rank from first to third and that he was no longer being processed for the position. However, Naylor claimed that the city had a policy where, even if an applicant was reduced in rank, the applicant must remain on the certified eligibility list prepared by the city of Burbank Management Services Department. In September 2013, Naylor filed an age and gender discrimination claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He subsequently received a “Right to Sue” letter. Thus, Naylor filed a civil suit against the city of Burbank, alleging that the city’s actions constituted gender and age discrimination. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that no males had been hired for the 911 dispatcher position since 1998 and that the lone male who had worked at the Burbank Police Department Communications Center retired in 2013. Thus, counsel contended that there were only females working at the Communications Center since 2013. Naylor claimed that his departmental interview, he was asked questions about working with “difficult” females, but that female candidates were not asked similar questions about their ability to work with women. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Burbank police personnel also claimed that female candidates subjected to a similar departmental interview were not asked questions about their ability to work with women. Naylor also claimed that he was the most qualified candidate and entitled to Veterans’ Preference Points, but that after his round of candidates, no one was hired and the process continued. He further claimed that while considered in the process, no male candidates were subjected to background investigations, which was one of the final steps in the city’s hiring process. In addition, Naylor claimed that after he was told that he was being reduced in the hiring eligibility rank from first to third, he learned that the new number one candidate was a mid-twenties female, whose previous stressful work experience was at In-N-Out Burger, while the newly ranked number two candidate had been a dispatcher with another city. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after the lieutenant who spoke with Naylor by phone reported that Naylor was angry and indignant after being told he had been reduced in hiring eligibility rank, the deputy chief allegedly relied on an order not to process, as issued by a Burbank Police Department deputy chief. However, Naylor denied that he was angry or indignant during the phone call. The deputy chief also claimed that the order not to process Naylor was based on a Police Department captain’s report that stated that members of the outside interview panel had serious reservations about Naylor. However, that Police Captain testified at trial that he had received no negative comments about Naylor from the outside interview panel, nor had he seen any transcripts or listened to recordings of that interview. Defense counsel contended that there have been at least two males in the communications center during the past 20 years, one of whom recently retired. Counsel also presented evidence that very few males apply for the position of communications operator and that most communication centers, not just Burbank’s, are predominantly female. Defense counsel noted that in 2013, 74 males and 172 females applied; 62 males and 144 females took the written test; and only four males and seven females passed and were scheduled for oral interviews. In addition, counsel noted that during the 2013 recruitment for the position of communications operator, two males were on the eligibility list, but one of the males did not proceed to the background investigation and the other one withdrew, deciding to stay with the California Highway Patrol. The city claimed that it never contended that Naylor was not qualified for the position and that Naylor’s qualifications were not relevant to whether or not the city discriminated against him. Defense counsel argued that there was never an order from the deputy chief and that the deputy chief had no involvement in Naylor’s ranking being lowered from number one to number three. Counsel contended that Naylor was interviewed by two panels, one of which was composed of non-city employees and the other was composed of a captain, lieutenant and administrator in the Burbank Police Department. Counsel contended that after the first interview, Naylor was ranked number three, but due to the award of Veteran’s Preference Points, his ranking was increased to number one. Thus, defense counsel argued that it was untrue that Naylor was not awarded Veteran’s Preference Points, as they put him at number one on the eligibility list. Counsel further contended that after the second interview, Naylor was also ranked number three and that it was during the second interview that Naylor was asked questions about his ability to work with females, but that those questions did not affect his ranking or eligibility, as he was ranked at number three by both interview panels and remained on the eligibility list after the second interview. Defense counsel asserted that when Naylor was contacted by telephone and told that he was ranked number three, rather than number one, after the second interview, he became angry. Counsel contended that as a result, the conversation was relayed to the captain and then to the deputy chief, who made the decision not to pursue Naylor for the position. The deputy chief testified that the decision was made not to pursue Naylor because of the telephone conversation and because both interview panels expressed concern about Naylor’s interpersonal skills. A detective testified that he had contacted Naylor several times regarding a police recruit position that Naylor had also applied for, but that Naylor told him that he had accepted a police position with another agency. The detective claimed that when he asked him what agency, Naylor hung up on him. In addition, defense counsel disputed the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the 2013 and 2014 recruitments for communications operator positions. Counsel contended that no one was hired for the position in 2013 and 2014 and that, in 2014, the number of male applicants versus female applicants was very similar to 2013. For example, counsel contended that there were 116 male applicants and 226 female applicants in 2014. Defense counsel further contended that neither Naylor nor the new number one candidate had police dispatch experience and that both the new number one and number two candidates withdrew from the background process. Thus, defense counsel argued that had Naylor not become angry during the telephone conversation regarding his ranking, he would have been placed in the background process and possibly hired for the position., Naylor, a highly decorated Air Force Combat Controller, was 50 years old at the time of trial. He sought recovery of $650,000 in damages for the wages and benefits that he allegedly would have received. Defense counsel noted that Naylor also requested a multiplier of 1.5 times the attorney fees.