In June 2015, plaintiff Maria Hoffer, 54, a former contract worker at Chevron’s El Segundo refinery, was not re-hired for the position that she had allegedly been doing for the past four years. Chevron previously decided to start hiring direct employees for the position of “Work Control Specialist” instead of using contract workers, as it previously had done. Thus, in May 2015, Hoffer applied for two job openings for the permanent position doing the same work she allegedly had been doing, but for more pay and better benefits. Hoffer was one of 204 applicants, and she was one of nine to be asked to interview for the job. The four-person interview panel also specifically recommended Hoffer for one of the two open positions. However, Chevron’s operations manager, Tim Sutherland, offered the job to two younger applicants, Elva Cervantes and Janae Lyles, who were 34 and 35. Lyles was an internal employee and was ranked number four by the interview team. Lyles initially declined the job offer, but Chevron negotiated with Lyles and persuaded her to accept the offer. As a result, Chevron sent an email to Hoffer to inform her that Chevron selected applicants who were better qualified. Hoffer immediately replied to Chevron’s email, and copied several Chevron managers on her email, to state her qualifications for the job and to complain of age discrimination and favoritism, but nobody replied to the email. Hoffer sued Chevron USA Inc., alleging that its actions constituted age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Hoffer claimed that she had pioneered the work control specialist job as a contract worker and that she had received positive performance appraisals during her four years as a contract worker at Chevron’s refinery. Thus, she applied for the position that was essentially her old job, but with better pay and benefits. She also noted that Chevron’s equal employment opportunity policy required that Chevron hire the most-qualified applicant based on objectively verifiable data. However, Hoffer claimed that despite being one out of nine applicants asked to interview for the job, out of 204 total applicants, the four-person interview panel specifically recommending her for one of the two open positions, Sutherland bypassed her to offer the job to two younger, less qualified applicants. She also claimed that after Lyles initially declined the job offer, Chevron negotiated with Lyles instead of offering the job to her. In addition, Hoffer claimed that Sutherland bypassed her and another, older, internal applicant, Violet Torres, who was ranked number three by the hiring team and, instead, hired Lyles, who was ranked number four by the interview team. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Sutherland acted with a discriminatory motive when he bypassed Hoffer, who was the most qualified applicant based on objectively verifiable data, to hire the younger, less qualified Cervantes and Lyles. Counsel also contended that the four-person interview team recommended Hoffer for the job, but that Sutherland discriminated against Hoffer by rejecting the selection team’s recommendation to hire Cervantes and Lyles. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that during cross examination at trial, Sutherland claimed that he did not recall many facts and answered, “I don’t recall,” to over 50 questions. Counsel also noted that although Hoffer claimed that Chevron’s communications about the hiring decisions were “sent” by two senior executives, when the two senior executives were called to testify about their communications, they claimed that they knew nothing about them and denied sending them. According to plaintiff’s counsel, every Chevron witness who testified about the hiring decision admitted that Chevron was looking out for the long-term interests of the company when the decision was made, instead of focusing on hiring the most-qualified applicant, as per the employment opportunity policy. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Chevron violated its equal employment opportunity policy by not hiring Hoffer. Chevron’s counsel contended that Sutherland acted properly when he bypassed Hoffer (and Torres) for the work control specialist job and offered the job to a current Chevron employee. Counsel argued that the work control specialist job was a “new” position and that Chevron sought to fill the position as part of a “restructuring” of the department. Counsel also argued that Chevron hired Cervantes and Lyles, both internal employees, over Hoffer due to a hiring freeze that impacted the hiring of external candidates. In addition, defense counsel argued that Chevron preferred hiring internal candidates over external applicants and that it did not offer the job to Torres, the number three ranked applicant, because her boss would not release her from her current Chevron job. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the alleged hiring freeze pertained only to upstream positions and that the work control specialist job at the El Segundo refinery was a downstream position that was not impacted by the hiring freeze. Counsel also contended that Chevron’s hiring preference of internal over external applicants was not documented in any Chevron policy statement and that Torres had been released to apply for the work control specialist job., Hoffer was a widow with one son, age 24, at the time of her employment. She would have been earning over $88,000 per year, if she had been hired by Chevron for the work control specialist job. She also would have had a very nice pension/retirement plan at Chevron. Hoffer claimed that, instead, she is working at DaVita/Health Care Partners earning approximately $55,000 and that she does not have a pension at her current job. She also claimed that there would be a differential in pay to age 65. Hoffer was diagnosed with shingles, which she claimed was from post-termination stress. She also claimed her acid reflux condition was exacerbated post-termination. Thus, Hoffer sought recovery for her past and future economic loss and past emotional distress. She also sought punitive damages. Hoffer contended that the malice and fraud was based on Chevron lying about the stated reasons for not hiring her, lying about the hiring freeze, and lying about the reason why Chevron bypassed Torres (another older worker who was also ranked higher than Lyles, the younger applicant who was hired).