In May 2007, plaintiff Josephine Ojeda, a Mexican-American in her 50s who worked as a probation officer with the county of San Mateo since September 1991, applied for a management position at the level above her, but was denied the promotion. Instead, a white male and female were promoted. Ojeda made a complaint with the state in December 2008, alleging that she was denied the promotion based on her race. In February 2009, Ojeda applied for a temporary promotion, but was again denied. Instead, a male that was approximately nine years younger than Ojeda received it. Subsequently, in July 2009, Ojeda was rotated to a different assignment, but was not immediately given permanent office space. In September 2009, Ojeda filed a second complaint with the state, alleging that she was retaliated against for making her first complaint with the state by being denied the temporary promotion and by not receiving permanent office space. Ojeda sued the county of San Mateo Probation Department and members of the management team that conducted interviews and assessments for the promotions, Loren Buddress, Stewart Peterson, James Nordman, Michael Stauffer, Sheralyn Irving Freitas, Christy Morrill, Stuart Forrest and Ken Pesso. She originally brought eight causes of action against the defendants, but her claims for racial harassment and the failure to prevent racial harassment were dismissed due to her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to those claims. Subsequently, the trial went forth on her claims of racial discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision and retention. Ojeda claimed that she had more years of experience in the probation department than either of the two individuals who were also in the management department and promoted in May 2007. She asserted that those promoted individuals only had half as much experience as she did. The defendants contended that the employees who were promoted were more deserving of the promotion than Ojeda, and that Ojeda’s race was not a motivating factor in the decision not to promote her. They further contended that Ojeda did not receive the temporary promotion because the marginally younger candidate was more qualified than she was. Defense counsel added that the members of the hiring panel who made the decision were not aware of Ojeda’s complaints to the state., Ojeda claimed emotional distress, specifically against the individual defendants. Ojeda continues to work in the Probation Department as a management employee. Defense counsel asserted that Ojeda presented no evidence of any emotional distress.