Plaintiffs Michael Booker, Cleveland Brown, James Jenkins, Eugene McBride, Shawn Pickett, Johan Simon and Arnold Threets, who are black police officials in Contra Costa County, claimed that during their employment, they each experienced racial discrimination. Booker, Brown, Jenkins, McBride, Pickett, Simon and Threets sued former Deputy Chief Lori Ritter, Police Chief Chris Magnus and their employer, the city of Richmond. They alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted racial discrimination and retaliation, which created a hostile work environment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Magnus, upon being hired from Fargo, N.D., aligned himself with Ritter, who had a reputation for being a racist and was connected to the “Richmond Cowboys,” a group of white officers who were the subject of a discrimination suit in the 1980s. The plaintiffs claimed that Magnus often used offensive racial language, such as joking about “Driving Miss Daisy” and calling plaintiff Brown a derogatory term for black people. Plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that Ritter admitted to asking Brown to tap dance at a staff meeting, stating that she realized it was a mistake and attempted to apologize to Brown for her comment. Counsel further contended that Ritter was accused of mocking an African-American girl in slave-like stereotypical language at a police commission meeting and that Ritter admitted to mimicking the girl, but that she alleged that it was not in an offensive way. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that during a discussion on race at a retreat, Magnus told African-American officers that he would make their lives “a living hell” if they complained to the City Manager about racism, especially their concerns about Deputy Chief Ritter and the perception that she was racist. However, the plaintiffs claimed that in October, the city manager became aware of the contentious September retreat, but failed to take any preemptive action. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Magnus and Ritter conspired to halt the promotion of black officers in the department by denying them proper training exercises or performance evaluations. The plaintiffs also claimed that Magnus told a coworker that he wanted to limit the number of blacks in the Investigative Services Division, stating that he did not want a “blackout.” As a result, the plaintiffs claimed they were subjected to unfair scrutiny and criticism, such as Brown being accused of taking Magnus’ car. They also presented evidence that they believed proved Magnus handed Brown a negative evaluation three months after Magnus took over as Chief and for 19 months, delayed the paperwork that would have given Brown his pay increase to Captain. Additionally, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the seven plaintiffs had over 200 combined years of meritorious service, but were still not offered any promotions. Defense counsel conceded that some of the plaintiffs were not provided with performance evaluations and that other evaluations were delayed. However, counsel argued that there was no harm to the plaintiffs. Defense counsel contended there was not racial discrimination, but rather the plaintiffs were resistant to new policing methods bought in by Magnus when he was hired as Chief. Counsel referred to Threets’ testimony in which he characterized Magnus as being “unfit” for the job since his first day. Defense counsel also contended that Magnus’ methods of policing were effective, pointing to a decline in violent crime under his tenure. Thus, counsel argued that Magnus put forth a more community-based policing method, which the plaintiffs did not like or support. Defense counsel also offered testimony of a high-ranking black police official who said he did not observe any racist behavior from Magnus. The official also testified that the plaintiffs willingly boycotted the promotion process and that he had personally appealed for more blacks to apply. Plaintiffs’ counsel countered that the plaintiffs were boycotting the racist promotional process and would not be subjected to second-class treatment. Counsel likened his clients to Rosa Parks, who would not just be content with being at the back of the bus., The plaintiffs’ expert economist opined that each plaintiff lost about $1.5 million in overall salary by not being promoted. Thus, each plaintiff asked for $3 million in damages, which encompassed compensatory, punitive and emotional distress damages. The defense’s expert economist opined that based on the plaintiffs’ recent pay history, they would have taken a pay cut if promoted to the deputy chief position, which is paid a base salary and did not include the overtime compensation the plaintiffs would have enjoyed in their previous positions. The expert further opined that while the base compensation package for the role of deputy chief is more, when you consider the entire compensation package, the plaintiffs were doing better in their current jobs financially. As an example, the defense’s expert testified that Threets earned about $209,000 last year, which included overtime and attainable performance incentives, and that this was about $21,000 more than he would have earned in a deputy chief position.