Facts

In 2004, plaintiff John Bersinger, a 56-year-old lawyer and businessman, interviewed for an analyst position with the California Student Aid Commission. Plaintiff claimed that the hiring manager, who was 34 years old, made comments during the interview that he had a "young staff" and that he wanted to hire a young person for the job. Plaintiff also claimed that he was asked inappropriate questions during the interview such as "If you were a race car, what would you tell your pit crew to make you go faster?" Ultimately, the Commission selected a 32-year-old for the job, who plaintiff claimed was much less qualified.

After plaintiff learned he was not hired for the job, he filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) claiming age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The first trial in this case ended with a hung jury, 8-4 against the Student Aid Commission on the question as to whether age was a motivating reason for the refusal to hire. This jury reached a verdict of 9-3 in favor of the Commission finding that age was not a motivating reason.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that he was not selected for a position as an analyst with the Student Aid Commission based on his age. Plaintiff claimed that he did mention his concerns about the questions in the interview to the DFEH.

Also, the California Student Aid Commission took 11 months to answer the DFEH's questions and misrepresented the reasons why plaintiff was not hired. Plaintiff contended that defense claimed to have lost all the interview notes and produced the applications, except for plaintiff's and the person selected. The hiring manager said that he was impressed with the plaintiff following the interview.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed that plaintiff was not selected for the position because of how he performed in the interview and not his age.

Defendant claimed that the plaintiff failed to disclose in his complaint, or during his hour long interview with the DFEH investigator, that any young comments were made during his interview. Defendant contended it was not until four years after the interview that the plaintiff first claimed that any age related comments were made.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff's last settlement demand was for $500,000. Prior to the first trial, defendant offered $20,000. Also in January 2009, defendant offered plaintiff with an unconditional offer to employ him in the AGPA position to which he applied. When plaintiff expressed an interest in accepting the job, defendant withdrew the offer. Defendant claimed that this was a settlement offer and it was found to be inadmissible.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 20, 2007. Plaintiff has filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a motion for new trial. The hearing date is not yet set.

Deliberation

five hours

Poll

9-3 (defense)

Length

eight days