In 2008, plaintiff Patrick Nejadian, 53, a chief in Los Angeles County’s Environmental Quality and Land Use Department was passed over for promotion. In January 2015, he was again passed over for promotion to the position of Environmental Health Services Manager. Nejadian claimed that he was not promoted because of his age and nepotism. He also claimed that he was not promoted because he had reported certain acts to superiors. Nejadian sued his employer, the county of Los Angeles. He alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age and that he was retaliated against in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code § 1102.5(c). Nejadian’s counsel contended that Nejadian worked for the county for 27 years and had attained the rank of chief in the Environmental Quality and Land Use Department in 2002. However, counsel argued that Nejadian was turned down for promotion to the role of manager in 2008 and 2015 because Nejadian was 53 years old and 59 years old in those respective years. Counsel contended that when a manager position opened, applicants were required to take a test that placed them on a list of eligible candidates, followed by a one-on-one interview with the department head. However, Nejadian’s counsel argued that although Nejadian was the most qualified candidate, the position was offered both times to a younger individual. Nejadian alleged that he was not given promotions due to nepotism, specifically claiming that an unqualified candidate was given a manager position because he was the godfather to a child of one of the most senior department heads. Thus, Nejadian’s counsel argued that although Los Angeles County employs a strict anti-nepotism policy, the policy was violated. Nejadian’s counsel contended that Nejadian is an expert in wastewater treatment and that in 2010, Nejadian would not allow a friend of a department head to keep an existing septic tank that did not meet regulations and standards because its existence was against the law. Nejadian claimed that after that incident, he was treated with contempt by his superiors and that the incident contributed to his not being promoted. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Nejadian was a protected whistleblower and that Nejadian was retaliated against following the 2010 incident. Nejadian filed an internal complaint, as well as a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, regarding his claims of age discrimination in February 2015. Defense counsel for the county of Los Angeles contended that the individuals hired to fill the management positions were more qualified than Nejadian and that the decision as to who to promote was strictly a business decision. Counsel further contended that the county did not ask Nejadian to violate any law, regulation or statute, and that no proof was provided that the county did such alleged actions., Nejadian claimed that as a result of age discrimination and nepotism, he was not promoted. He alleged that as a result, he has suffered a loss of income since 2008. He also claimed that the defendant’s failure to promote him and discriminatory actions caused him emotional distress. Thus, Nejadian sought recovery of approximately $300,000 for his past and future lost wages, and $2 million for his emotional-distress damages. Defense counsel argued that any award of future economic damages would be speculative in nature.