Mangold testified that high profile assignments were given to younger employees.

Mangold testified that duty statements and the examination process were altered to allow younger people to be placed on promotion lists. Crommie testified that a PUC director told him 'Maurice, you know we want fresh young blood in this group.' After he informed her that he had completed certain graduate courses, she said 'You're still too old.' A former supervisor of Mr. Substantial evidence supports the jury's findings. An award of liquidated damages means the jury found that the violation was intentional because the court instructed: And it awarded liquidated damages under the ADEA to both plaintiffs. It found that certain individuals conspired to fail to promote plaintiffs. It found that the PUC violated fundamental public policy under state law.

It found that some individual defendants violated FEHA by aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing an act forbidden by FEHA. It found that the PUC would not have made the same employment decisions regardless of plaintiffs' ages. 3 True, the verdict form combined two theories into one interrogatory: 'Using the disparate treatment or disparate impact theory of age discrimination, did the violate the ADEA federal law and/or the FEHA state law by discriminating against plaintiffs on the basis of age?' However, the jury also found that the plaintiffs' ages were motivating factors in the PUC's employment decisions. We need not address here whether disparate impact is a proper theory under the ADEA because the jury found intentional discrimination under a disparate treatment theory.

Ca public utilities code 240