A man has brought a gender discrimination claim alleging that his police department failed to promote him to Captain because of his gender.

Plaintiff points to the department’s goal of increasing gender representation as evidence he was passed over due to his gender. Defendant denies that it discriminated against Plaintiff, says that Plaintiff was not qualified to perform the duties of the Captain position, and says all actions it took with respect to Plaintiff were lawful, justified, and done in good faith.

On November 15, 2024, Defendant asked the court to rule in their favor based on the existing court record. Defendant argued that even if the allegations in the complaint were true, Plaintiff failed to prove a claim of gender discrimination. In response, Plaintiff asserted that he had presented enough evidence to demonstrate discrimination, claiming he was more qualified than the selected candidates and that the promotion process was altered to disadvantage men.

On April 14, 2025, the court denied Defendant's motion for judgment based on the pleadings because it found that Plaintiff's allegations of discrimination were sufficient.

On August 11, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment stating that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case of discrimination because he cannot show a causal connection between his status as a male and not being selected for the Captain position. Additionally, Defendant argued that they chose candidates not just based on their assessment and interview scores, but also for their leadership skills, reputation in the department, and previous performance. Defendant argued that Plaintiff was not selected because of Sheriff Diggins' observations of Plaintiff's leadership style and complaints he received from Deputy Sheriffs who worked with Plaintiff. Defendant pressed that all those eligible for selection were in the same high tier, which meant that their scores met minimum qualifications.

On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argued that each of Defendant's arguments required the court to weigh evidence in its favor which goes against the standard of evaluating summary judgment motions. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that he can establish a prima facie case, and that there are disputed issues of fact regarding the reasons he wasn't selected for promotion. Plaintiff pressed that his scores were higher than those of the two women promoted to Captain. Also, Plaintiff argued that in spite of the department having objective, gender-neutral assessments, Sheriff Diggins did not follow any established standards. Instead, Sheriff Diggins allegedly used his own discretion. Lastly, Plaintiff could not recall any time Sheriff Diggins observed him managing employees.

On March 26, 2026, the court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court could not conclude that there was an abundant amount of non-disputed evidence that no discrimination had occurred. The court also ordered the parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution.