Mangold

Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission

Good Law
67 F.3d 1470·95 Daily Journal DAR 13962·1995 WL 606532·67 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,752·69 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 48
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 17, 1995Nos. 94-15287, 94-15696California4,594 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

King, J.

Defendants/appellants the California Public Utilities Commission and various individual employees (collectively “the PUC”) appeal from judgment after a jury verdict awarding (1) plaintiff/appellee Maurice Crommie $151,-920 plus 10% interest and costs, and (2) plaintiff/appellee Arthur Mangold $164,052 plus 10% interest and costs against the PUC for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 , et seq. (ADEA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal.Gov.Code §§ 12940, et seq. (FEHA), and California common law. The PUC also appeals from the award of $724,380 in attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the judgment and fee award, but remand for recomputation of post-judgment interest.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

These two consolidated cases arise from allegations of age discrimination in promotions by the PUC from the mid-1980s to the early-1990s. Mr. Crommie filed his action in state court October 12, 1989; Mr. Mangold, on February 21, 1989. After the cases were removed, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints, and the cases were consolidated. Meanwhile, the EEOC filed class action suits against the PUC on behalf of 43…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.