LOWELL JENSEN, District Judge
This matter came on for a bench trial which was held on December 6, 2005 through December 13, 2005. Throughout these proceedings, Peter C. Perez and Peter J. Sablan appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Julia Borja Emmanuel. David Ledger and Elyze McDonald appeared for Defendants Guam Seventh-day Adventist Clinic and Guam-Micronesia Mission. This matter is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. against Defendants Guam Seventh-day Adventist Clinic and Guam-Micronesia Mission. Defendant Michael Mahoney was dismissed from this matter July 22, 2004 and Does 1 through 10 were dismissed on November 29, 2005. In an Order dated July 5, 2005, the Court found that Plaintiff had waived her right to a jury trial and Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's demand for a jury was granted.
This Order sets forth the Final Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of this Court.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Plaintiff Julia Borja Emmanuel
1. Plaintiff Julia Borja Emmanuel (Plaintiff) is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Guam.
2. Plaintiff is Chamorro, the ethnicity of the indigenous people of Guam, and she is female.
3. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Guam Seventh-day Adventist Clinic (Clinic) in December 1990 and served as its Human Resources (HR) Director from September 1, 1992 until September 1, 2003.
B. Guam Seventh-day Adventist Clinic and Guam-Micronesia Mission
1. The Guam Seventh-day Adventist Clinic (Clinic) and the Guam-Micronesia Mission (Mission) are non-profit organizations part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA).
2. The Defendant Clinic is one of a number of activities under the supervision of the Defendant Mission. The activities supervised by the Mission include churches, schools, and medical clinics in the several islands within the territory of the Mission. At all periods pertinent to this case, Pastor Remenster Jano, a United States citizen of Ponapean origin and ethnicity, served as the Mission President.
3. The Seventh-day Adventist General Conference is the governing body of the SDA.
4. The SDA is divided into thirteen regional Divisions for administrative purposes. Each Division is further subdivided into several Missions. The Guam-Micronesia Mission is within the Southern Asian-Pacific Division of the SDA.
5. The governing body of the Clinic is a Board of Directors (Board) appointed by the Mission.
6. Day-by-day supervision of the Clinic is run by an Administrative Council (Ad Council) of Clinic employees selected by the Board. The Clinic Administrator works under the Ad Council.
7. The Clinic employs approximately 200 employees.
8. The Clinic employs Interdivision Employees (IDEs), contract employees, and local resident hires.
9. At the Clinic, IDEs are generally healthcare professionals, primarily physicians and dentists, who maintain their permanent residency in a Division other than the Southern Asia-Pacific Division and travel to and reside temporarily on Guam to work for the Clinic.
10. The Clinic, as a SDA organization, requires that its healthcare providers, regardless of whether they are IDEs or hired locally, belong to the Seventh-day Adventist faith. The IDEs are "called" to their work at the Clinic by the General Conference of the SDA, and their service is regarded to be akin to missionary service.
11. The law of Guam requires that medical healthcare providers practicing in Guam must be licensed in the United States.
12. The Clinic recruits a majority of its healthcare providers from other SDA Divisions, the Northern American Division in particular, as it is difficult to find persons of the Seventh-day Adventist faith with the requisite healthcare qualifications and licensing on Guam or in the Southern Asia-Pacific Division.
13. Healthcare providers working at the Clinic, whether IDEs or not, generally make less than they would be paid in the United States.
14. The Clinic offers an IDE benefits package that includes a housing allowance, a tax subsidy, vacation time with paid off-island travel, and tuition benefits for dependents. The package is designed to assist IDEs while they are displaced from their homes in the United States or country of origin, and to help make up the pay disparity which accompanies their work at the Clinic.
15. Local resident hires, as opposed to IDEs, are employees hired from the Guam community at large. Local resident hires receive a standard benefit package which includes, among other items, heath and dental insurance and a life insurance option.
16. Contract employees of the Clinic may have employment contracts which include benefits in addition to the standard local hire benefit package. These contract benefits may be comparable to the IDE benefit package. Contract employees negotiate their contracts with the Clinic on a case-by-case basis. For example, the current Clinic Administrator, Frances Mantanona, although a resident of Guam and not an IDE, has a negotiated contract with the Clinic which includes IDE-type benefits.
17. At the Clinic, in her role as HR Director, Plaintiff was a locally hired contract employee. Her benefits before the 2003 reclassification of the HR Director position included car depreciation assistance, car insurance, a utility allowance, tuition subsidies for her children's education, vacation time, subscriptions to professional journals, continuing education with expenses covered for tuition and travel to attend a continuing education course, and a homeowner's allowance. These benefits were comparable to IDE benefits.
18. The Clinic and the Mission generally commended Plaintiff for her work performance and awarded her regular incremental raises. See, e.g., Plaintiff's Exhibits (Pl. Exhs.) 7, 14-17, 20, 62. She was appointed to the Administrative Council of the Clinic. She was entrusted with responsibilities, such as negotiating insurance contracts. She was also an invitee on the Mission's Executive Committee. She was voted to act as the Mission's Children's Minister and to be a spiritual leader for employee retreats.
19. Michael Mahoney became the Clinic's Administrator in mid-2001, and served as Administrator during the time period in 2003 when the activities which gave rise to this lawsuit occurred.
20. At the time Mahoney became Administrator, the ethnic breakdown of the Clinic's non-healthcare provider staff and management was: 51% Filipinos, 20% Chamorros, 14% Caucasians, 6% Pacific Islanders, 3% Caucasian-Chamorros, 2% African-American, 2% other, 1% mixed and 1% Chinese. Defendants' Exhibit (Def. Exh.) D. Among healthcare providers, the ethnic breakdown was 25 Caucasians, 1 Nigerian, 2 Filipinos, 2 Hawaiians, 5 Koreans, 1 Peruvian, 2 Japanese, and 2 Indonesians. Def. Exh. D.
21. In mid-2004 when Mahoney ceased being Administrator, and after Plaintiff brought this lawsuit, the ethnic breakdown of the Clinic's non-healthcare provider staff and management was: 51% Filipinos, 22% Chamorros, 15% Caucasians, 6% Pacific Islanders, 1% African-American, 2% other, 2% mixed and 1% Chinese. Def. Exh. E. Among healthcare providers the ethnic breakdown was: 22 Caucasians, 1 Nigerian, 3 Filipinos, 1 Hawaiian, 5 Koreans, 1 Peruvian, 2 Japanese, 2 Indonesians, and 1 female Chamorro. Def. Exh. E.
C. The Board of Director's Decision Regarding Plaintiff's Employment Position and Benefits
1. Over the years the Clinic had been generally fiscally sound but began to suffer financial losses as a result of the lasting effects of the bankruptcy of a local insurance company, GMHP, to which a large number of patients seeking treatment at the Clinic belonged. The Clinic continued treating patients in spite of the lack of insurance coverage by GMHP. Trial testimony established that eventually, GMHP paid about thirty to thirty five cents on the dollar on the $1,000,000-plus amount owed to the Clinic. Testimony also established that the Clinic was recovering from a loss of business resulting from a shooting incident at the Clinic in 2001 where one person was killed.
2. Financial statements introduced at trial confirmed that the Clinic was operating at a loss in 2002 and 2003. The evidence established that the loss for 2002 was approximately $800,000 and that the projected loss for 2003 as of mid-2003 was believed to be over $250,000.
3. Mahoney, the Clinic Administrator during this time, testified that the Clinic's financial condition made it difficult to upgrade equipment, invest in infrastructure, and recruit healthcare providers. Pastor Jano testified that at one point in time, Clinic officials went to the Mission asking for prayers to help the Clinic meet payroll. Violet Cruz, a Clinic Board Member, also testified that the Clinic was having financial difficulties.
4. At a meeting of the Clinic Board in the spring of 2003, the Board heard reports as to the financial condition of the Clinic and voted to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Savings and Efficiency, to consider any actions the Board should take to respond to the financial crisis. The Board asked the Ad Hoc Committee to develop and propose cost-cutting measures. The Ad Hoc Committee was comprised of:
• Administrator Michael Mahoney
• Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Kerstan Reese
• Jordan Urban, the Clinic's Chief Accountant
• Dr. Bevan Geslani, the Clinic's Medical Director
• Reggie Leach, a Board member
• Michael Robinson, another Clinic employee
5. Dr. Geslani acted as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee.
6. On May 28, 2003, based on a list of options prepared by Dr. Geslani, the Ad Hoc Committee devised a number of immediate measures to cut costs at the Clinic. Pl. Exh. 46.
7. Those immediate measures included:
• eliminating some of the benefits of the HR Director position and basing the salary on the market wage for such a position in Guam
• replacing the nursing manager position with a supervisory position with part-time nursing duties
• eliminating the customer service position
• instituting a hiring freeze
• re-negotiating janitorial contract services
• cross-training employees to become versatile in several positions
• eliminating overtime and temporary work
• eliminating paid paternity leave
• implementing a 72-hour pay period.
8. The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended a number of intermediate/mid-range and long-term strategic cost-savings measures for the future. Pl. Exh. 46. The intermediate/midrange plans included:
• studying the IDE status for a dental hygienist
• studying the IDE status for an administrative position
• reviewing the number of IDE staff of the Wellness Center
• reviewing the staffing level of the dental clinic
• reviewing the advertising budget
• eliminating floating holidays
• lumping sick time and other leave time
• shifting family practice physicians to more outpatient clinic hours from hospital duties
• re-evaluating the need to have available guest apartments
• restudying the practice of comp time
• reviewing subsidy amounts
• studying the costs of mission trips for providers
9. Finally, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended a long-term strategic plan. Pl. Exh. 46. The long-term plan included:
• reviewing the provider loan amortization program for new physicians/providers
• implementing policy of step-wise increase in percentage of base salary for new physicians out of residency
• capping continuing education funds
• working on pharmacy software and inventory system
• working on staff level for purchasing and better inventory
• obtaining bulk discounts for medical and office supplies
• studying areas of redundancy in space needs
• reviewing requests of providers and scheduling of leaves and vacations to avoid times of low provider presence in the Clinic
• tracking new patients to see how they decided to come to the Clinic
• developing a better way to scan records to save time
• conducting a phone line audit and looking at alternatives to phone cost
10. The Ad Hoc Committee then presented its recommendations to the Ad Council of the Clinic.
11. On June 3, 2003, the Ad Council adopted a number of the Ad Hoc Committee's immediate recommendations. For example, consensus approval was reached to eliminate paid paternity leave, to eliminate funding of support staff during mission trips, to work on negotiating better pricing for pharmaceutical medications and other supplies, and to implement use of volume accounts. The Ad Council forwarded the other recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee for action by the Clinic Board. Pl. Exh. 47.
12. The following Ad Council members were present at the June 3, 2003 meeting:
• Plaintiff
• CFO Kerstan Reese
• Jolene Brecht
• Michael Robinson
• Dr. Bevan Geslani
• Bob Wresch.
13. On July 10, 2003, the Clinic Board met to discuss the financial situation at the Clinic and to consider the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations on cost-saving measures. The voting members of the Board who were present at the meeting were:
• Pastor Jano, a Ponapean
• Violet Cruz, a Caucasian married to a Chamorro
• Reggie Leach
• Administrator Michael Mahoney, a Caucasian
• CFO Kerstan Reese, an African-American
• Dr. Bevan Geslani, a Filipino
• Dr. Richard Ludders
14. After voting to accept CFO Reese's financial report detailing the financial troubles at the Clinic, the Board discussed possible cost-saving changes at the Clinic and held votes on a number of the cost-saving measures proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee.
15. Among the cost-saving measures voted on, the Board voted to reclassify the HR Director position to that of HR Manager. The vote changed the reimbursement of the position from that of a salaried position to that of an hourly position. The exact wage for the HR Manager position was to be established by the Clinic's Administrator and Medical Director. All benefits for the newly classified position would be equal to that of the hourly positions at the Clinic and any additional benefits were eliminated.
16. The Board's reclassification decision meant that Plaintiff's total compensation would be reduced and that Plaintiff would receive the standard local resident hire benefit package as opposed to the IDE-comparable benefits she had previously received.
17. Other cost-saving measures adopted by the Board at the July 10, 2003 meeting included review of the present janitorial services contract, reclassifying the Administrative Secretary to an hourly position, and not filling the position of the CFO, which was about to become vacant on the announced resignation of the incumbent CFO Kerstan Reese. Pl. Exh. 56. The Board also voted to retain the services of Mahoney as Administrator and Urban as Chief Accountant. Pl. Exh. 56. Mahoney did not participate in the vote regarding his position, and had offered to resign so that the Clinic could hire an Administrator with lower salary expectations.
18. All of the Board members present took part in the vote on the decision to reclassify the HR Director position except for Pastor Jano, who was acting as the Board Chairman and was not required to vote.
19. Trial testimony established that all of the six Board members who took part in the vote on the HR Director position voted in favor of reclassifying the position, with the possible exception of CFO Reese.
20. There was a dispute at trial over how Reese voted. Pastor Jano, Cruz, and Mahoney testified that the vote in favor of reclassifying the HR Director position was unanimous. Reese did not appear at trial, but stated in his deposition, which was entered into the record at trial, that he believed he had not voted in favor of reclassifying the HR Director position. The minutes of the July 10, 2003 meeting do not reflect that anyone voted in opposition to reclassifying the HR Director position. Pl. Exh. 56
D. Plaintiff's Lawsuit
1. Plaintiff filed this Title VII action on August 7, 2003, and alleged that the Clinic discriminated against her on the basis of her race, ethnic origin and gender.
2. At closing arguments, Plaintiff conceded that she had not proven a case of gender discrimination.
3. After Plaintiff filed her lawsuit, Clinic management reviewed alternatives to Plaintiff continuing in her position as HR Manager. Among the possibilities discussed with Plaintiff, was an offer that she would be placed on administrative leave with full pay, in exchange for Plaintiff's agreement to attend classes at the University of Guam. Plaintiff accepted this offer.
E. Trial Testimony — Non-Board Members
In the following section, the Court describes the testimony of the witnesses at trial, except for those witnesses who were on the Clinic's Board and present at the July 10, 2003 Board meeting, which will be described later in this Order.
1. Robert Stahlnecker
a. Stahlnecker is a white male and member of the SDA Church. He was called by Plaintiff as a witness to support her contention that there exists a pattern or practice of discrimination by the Clinic.
b. Stahlnecker testified that some 20 years ago his application to serve as pastor, at the Church in Guam, was turned down. The witness stated that at the time of that decision, a person, whose identity he cannot recall, told him that he was perceived as someone who sided too much with the locals.
2. Frances Mantanona
a. Mantanona was called by Plaintiff, in her case in chief, as a witness to support the existence of a pattern or practice of discrimination by the Clinic. As the current Administrator at the Clinic, she was also called as a witness by the Defense.
b. Mantanona, a Chamorro, was employed in several administrative positions at the Clinic from 1990 until 2000, ending as the assistant to the Administrator. In those positions, Mantanona held an employment contract providing benefits similar to an IDE package. In 1999, Mantanona was said to be unable to meet her performance expectations by the then-Administrator, Don Weidemann. As a result, the Clinic Board reduced Mantanona's duties, and modified her benefit package to be similar to that of other local hire salaried employees. In February 2000 she resigned from the Clinic, and sought employment at another healthcare clinic on Guam. Mantanona testified that the Clinic did not reduce her benefits because she was Chamorro, and that she has never filed a discrimination claim against the Clinic.
c. Mantanona was rehired by the Clinic Board in August 2004 as Clinic Administrator succeeding Michael Mahoney.
d. Mantanona, as Administrator at the Clinic since 2004, testified that there is no general prohibition against providing Chamorros with IDE or IDE-comparable benefits because they are Chamorro.
e. As the current Administrator, Mantanona testified as to the implementation and continuing effects of the immediate, mid-range and long-term cost-saving measures adopted by the Clinic's Ad Council and Board in July 2003 and thereafter. The Clinic has instituted a number of the intermediate-range measures proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee to effect cost savings, including increasing the workload of the dental hygienist, decreasing the number of staff at the Wellness Center, eliminating the advertising budget, lumping sick leave and regular leave into one category of leave time, and discontinuing the allowance of compensatory time. The Clinic has also instituted many of the Ad Hoc Committee's proposed long-term measures, including amortization of providers' education loans, monitoring providers' leave requests to ensure full-level staffing at all times, more efficient scanning of its medical records, and eliminating direct phone lines. Mantanona testified that implementation of the cost-savings measures has effectively improved the financial condition of the Clinic. Mantanona testified that as a result of implementation, the Clinic was able to eliminate an operational loss for the full year of 2003 as well as for the full year in 2004.
f. Plaintiff maintained at trial that Mantanona had been given the Administrator position by the Clinic in 2004, after this lawsuit was filed, because she was a female Chamorro and hiring her would present the Clinic in a better light at trial. In her post trial arguments Plaintiff described this circumstance as an attempt to conceal past practices of discrimination. Plaintiff's argument raises a question of fact. What was the purpose of the Clinic Board when it hired Mantanona in 2004? The trial evidence shows a regular application and hiring process and that Mantanona's qualifications are obvious and impressive. Plaintiff presents no evidence to support its accusation. The Court finds that Plaintiff's contention is not true — Mantanona was hired to serve as the Administrator of the Clinic, not as a litigation ploy.
g. Plaintiff makes a parallel argument based on the fact of Mantanona's status as Clinic Administrator — that the Court should reject her testimony as it is biased. This is, again, a question of fact. The Court heard the testimony and observed the demeanor of the witness. Mantanona was a central witness in the trial — called as a witness by both the Plaintiff and the Defendants. She was able to recall the relevant historical events and was fully responsive, forthright, and candid in her testimony. Beyond the accusation of bias, Plaintiff offers nothing to dispute or impeach the testimony presented. The Court rejects the argument of Plaintiff and accepts the testimony of Frances Mantanona as an honest, wholly credible account of her knowledge of the events at issue in this case.
3. Dr. Pamina Hofer
a. Dr. Hofer testified that she treated Plaintiff for emotional distress during 2004 and 2005. Dr. Hofer met with Plaintiff approximately eight to ten times during this period and testified that Plaintiff exhibited symptoms of stress including dizzyness, sudden fear without reason, abnormal sleep patterns and difficulty sleeping, lack of appetite, and lack of energy.
4. Roger Natividad
a. Natividad, like Mantanona, was called by Plaintiff in support of her contention of the existence of a pattern or practice of discrimination by the Clinic.
b. Natividad, a Filipino, acted as the Clinic's Maintenance Director. Natividad was reclassified to Maintenance Supervisor in response to complaints by then-Administrator Weidemann of his smoking at the non-smoking clinic facility, and his poor performance on certain jobs. Weidemann sought to terminate Natividad, but was convinced by the then-Associate Administrator Mahoney to instead reclassify Natividad and reduce his benefits. While the reclassification eliminated certain benefits, it maintained his wage at the same level as his annual salary earned as the Maintenance Director. Prior to his reclassification, Natividad received IDE-comparable benefits including the full payment of his daughter's college tuition at Loma Linda University. Natividad has since retired from working at the Clinic, and current Administrator Mantanona testified that although his poor performance, as well as sleeping on the job, became issues towards the end of his employment, the Clinic allowed Natividad to retire with full retirement benefits.
c. Natividad testified that he did not consider the conduct of the Board, as to his employment, was taken because of his ethnic origin.
5. Richard Brecht
a. Richard Brecht, a Caucasian, was employed by the Clinic as a local hire maintenance technician. The evidence established that after it was found that Brecht had taken drugs from the Clinic without authorization, as disciplinary measures, the Clinic demoted and reclassified him, required him to attend rehabilitation treatment, pay restitution, and reduced his pay.
b. Plaintiff argued that the relevance of this testimony was to show an atmosphere at the Clinic which treats Caucasians more favorably, on the asserted premise that Richard Brecht was "let off easy" because of his race, Caucasian. There was no evidence of what the Clinic had done by way of discipline related to any other employee who had engaged in similar conduct.
6. Jolene Brecht
a. Jolene Brecht, married to Richard Brecht, is a registered and licensed dental hygienist who works for the Clinic. She is a Caucasian who relocated to Guam from the United States, and was offered IDE status a few years after she began working at the Clinic. Brecht declined initial offers to become an IDE, but ultimately accepted based on the Clinic's need for a permanent dental hygienist. Brecht testified that her salary at the Clinic amounts to less than what she would earn in California and Colorado, where she is also licensed to practice. Brecht further testified that as a healthcare provider at the Clinic she helps bring in profits for the Clinic, and that her IDE benefits help make up the pay disparity from her salary at the Clinic and what she would receive as a healthcare provider in the United States.
b. Plaintiff stated that the relevance of this testimony was to show an atmosphere at the Clinic which treats Caucasians more favorably, upon the inference from the circumstances of her IDE appointment that Brecht must have been offered the IDE status because of her race, Caucasian.
7. Plaintiff Julia Borja Emmanuel
a. Plaintiff Emmanuel testified that the action of the Clinic Board on July 10, 2003 caused her demotion, a significant loss in compensation, and long term and severe mental distress. Plaintiff testified that it is her strongly held belief that the Board discriminated against her because she is Chamorro. Plaintiff stated that her belief is supported by a history of discrimination finally resulting in the discriminatory conduct of the Board in July 2003. The Plaintiff's testimony described specific incidents and events that she believes support her case against the Clinic:
• During the early days of Plaintiff's employment, a supervisor at the Clinic would not respond when the Plaintiff called her by her first name, but insisted that Plaintiff address her formally, while at the same time she allowed other Caucasian employees to address her informally.
• When Frances Mantanona lost her IDE-comparable benefits package in 1999, the conduct of the Board and of then-Administrator Weidemann, as to his allegation that Mantanona was not meeting his expectations, was discriminatory conduct.
• Jordan Urban, a Caucasian, came from another General Conference Division to work at Adventist World Radio, a subsidiary of the Mission, and was granted IDE benefits when he began working for the Clinic, ten years after his arrival on Guam.
• When Administrator Mahoney returned to Guam immediately after the shooting incident at the Clinic in 2001 he completely ignored the efforts or assistance of Plaintiff. Mahoney returned to the Clinic after the shooting and the initial police response. Plaintiff had been present at the time of the incident and had handled the Clinic's response, including her identification of the person responsible for the shooting. Plaintiff states that Mahoney did not rely on her for information about the shooting and the status of the Clinic, but instead ignored her and told her to go away.
• The treatment of Roger Natividad by the Clinic, specifically the loss of benefits, was discriminatory.
• Clinic employees made false statements about Roger Natividad being a poor worker.
• Jolene Brecht received IDE status because she was Caucasian.
• Administrator Mahoney required her to report to CFO Reese in order to belittle her.
• The Clinic and Administrator Mahoney built a false case to show that her HR position was overpaid.
• Administrator Mahoney interfered with her management responsibilities by interfering with her support staff.
• Termination of her husband's janitorial services contract with the Clinic was an act of discrimination.
• After the lawsuit was filed, Church members tried to make her feel guilty for filing the lawsuit.
• The treatment of Richard Brecht's misconduct by the Clinic was less punitive than it would have been if he had not been Caucasian.
• Administrator Mahoney, Jordan Urban and CFO Reese discussing in a meeting that Plaintiff has a "local cultural mind set."
• After the lawsuit was filed, Plaintiff did not receive an invitation to a Clinic Christmas gathering until it was too late to attend.
8. Ed Emmanuel
a. Ed Emmanuel, Plaintiff's husband, testified that his janitorial services company lost its contract with the Clinic after his wife brought this lawsuit. Plaintiff presented this testimony as evidence of discriminatory conduct by the Clinic, and to show that Plaintiff and her family were discriminatory targets of the Clinic.
b. Ed Emmanuel also testified that his wife was ostracized from the SDA community on Guam after filing this lawsuit, and testified that the reclassification of Plaintiff's position has negatively impacted the entire family, and has directly and negatively effected the emotional state and stability of the Plaintiff.
9. George Emmanuel
a. George Emmanuel, Plaintiff's son, testified that his mother was ostracized from the SDA community on Guam after filing this lawsuit, and testified that there were negative effects from the reclassification of Plaintiff's position on her emotional state and home life.
F. Trial Testimony — Clinic Board Members
There were seven members of the Clinic Board of Directors present at the meeting of the Board on July 10, 2003. All of the members, except the Chairman Pastor Jano, voted on the decision to demote/reclassify Plaintiff and remove some of her benefits. Four of the members, present at the meeting, testified at the trial — Pastor Jano, Violet Cruz, Michael Mahoney, and Kerstan Reese.
1. Pastor Remenster Jano
a. Pastor Jano testified that the Clinic was in bad financial shape in the time period leading up to July 2003, and that he and other Board members shared the belief that the Clinic needed to develop cost-saving measures and to cut expenses. He explained that this was the reason that the Ad Hoc Committee was formed in the spring of 2003.
b. Pastor Jano testified that during discussions to reclassify Plaintiff's position and reduce the Plaintiff's total compensation, he voiced his positive opinions of Plaintiff and encouraged the Clinic to think of the impact on local leadership.
c. Pastor Jano testified that he served as the Board Chairman during the Board's July 10, 2003 meeting and was present for the vote to reclassify Plaintiff's position, but as he was the Chairman, he did not participate in the vote.
d. Pastor Jano counted the votes at the July 10, 2003 meeting and testified that the vote was unanimous.
e. Pastor Jano testified that he believed the decision to reclassify Plaintiff and reduce her benefits was made for cost savings reasons.
2. Violet Cruz
a. Cruz, like Mantanona and Natividad, was called by Plaintiff in support of her contention of the existence of a pattern or practice of discrimination by the Clinic. As a