In the fall of 2009, plaintiffs Debra Ward and Patricia Tapia, both fire captains with the San Jose Fire Department, applied for nine open battalion chief positions. Tapia had worked in the department since 1986 and Ward since 1988. Ward and Tapia ultimately finished first and eighth, respectively, in testing for the battalion positions. However, in February 2011, after the selection process was completed, neither Ward nor Tapia was promoted to one of the nine spots despite their top eight finishes. They claimed that when they questioned the selection process to their union and department, they were rebuffed in their attempts to gain clarity on the matter. Ward and Tapia sued there employer, the city of San Jose, and Chief William McDonald of the San Jose Fire Department. They alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted gender discrimination. Ward and Tapia claimed that McDonald and the department discriminated against them by deciding not to promote them to the battalion chief positions. They claimed that this decision was based on their gender. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that despite their high test scores, in which Ward scored the best overall, Ward and Tapia were passed over for male applicants, some of whom the plaintiffs’ were asked to train. Plaintiffs’ counsel described the decision not to promote Ward and Tapia as “blatant and ridiculous bias.” Counsel contended that during the time McDonald took over the department, female firefighters faced constant discrimination by not being invited to meetings or by not receiving badges during ceremonies. Counsel also contended that McDonald favored male employees based on social interactions. In addition, Tapia, who was promoted to battalion chief in August 2011, claimed she never received her badge at a ceremony. Defense counsel contended that Ward and Tapia were not discriminated against and that the reason they were not promoted was due to their performances on the assessment test in early February 2011. The city claimed that it follows a system called the “rule of 10” that allowed Chief McDonald to select candidates from (in this case) the top 18 candidates. It explained that McDonald could select any candidates from the group of 18, as all 18 were considered equal, and that no one candidate had priority over the other. Thus, the city and McDonald claimed that although Ward and Tapia were in the group, they were not selected because more qualified candidates were available for the open positions. Plaintiffs’ counsel countered that the alleged assessment test was an arbitrary process that excluded female candidates and constituted as disparate treatment., Ward and Tapia sought recovery of damages for their lost earnings and overtime pay, which they would have received if they had been promoted to battalion chief in 2010. They also sought recovery of damages for their pain and suffering, as they claimed that the defendants’ actions caused them emotional distress.