Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SAMUEL P. KING, District Judge:
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…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Jadwin v. County of KernDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2011
- Patricia Johnson v. Teamsters Local 559, Patricia Johnson v. Teamsters Local 559Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Robinson v. Alameda CountyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2012
- 69 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 48, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,752, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8118, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,962 Arthur Mangold Maurice F. Crommie v. California Public Utilities Commission William Ahern Jeff O'DOnnell Catherine Yap Ed Texeira David Morse Terry Murray Mark Ziering Doug Long Wes Franklin Jim Pretti Leona Fong and Sandy Barsell, and Does 1 Through 20, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Krane v. Capital One Services, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2004
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.