Facts

Neal Shigemitsu was employed by the California Dept. of Real Estate (DRE) as a senior deputy commissioner for more than 30 years. On Sept. 13, 2004, he successfully tested to be eligible for a managing deputy commissioner position. At the time, Shigemitsu was working in DRE's Budget Review Unit, having worked in various positions within the Enforcement and Subdivisions section in the past. Subsequently, Shigemitsu applied for job openings in Oakland and San Diego, followed by Los Angeles. After turning down the San Diego position, Shigemitsu was promoted to managing deputy commissioner II in the Enforcement Section. The Los Angeles position in the Budget Review Unit was subsequently filled by a 42-year-old woman who had been working within the Unit.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Shigemitsu filed suit against the State of California and the DRE, alleging race, age, gender and national origin discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Shigemitsu contended that he was more qualified due to his 33 years of experience, education, and management and supervisor experience. He further alleged that he was not hired for the position because of his status as an older, male Japanese American.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The DRE contended that the promotion was justified, because it selected the best candidate for the position, who had been the only candidate working for the unit at the time of the interview and had been effectively performing her duties. DRE claimed the woman had worked in the unit for almost four years in comparison with Shigemitsu's 15 months experience, and other qualifications outweighed Shigemitsu's. Additionally, the other candidate's answers to the interview questions demonstrated greater and more accurate knowledge of the Budget Review, a better supervisory philosophy, and better ideas to improve the unit, when compared to Shigemitsu's answers.

Damages

Shigemitsu sought damages for difference in salary and benefits as well as emotional distress, with total damages between $103,141 and $137,377.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict for the defense.