In September 2014, plaintiff Leo Lynch, 90, an adjunct math professor at West Los Angeles College, a campus within the Los Angeles Community College District, had two of his math courses reduced to one course. He claimed that the district’s failure to promote him to a full-time instructor was a form of age discrimination and that the district retaliated against him by reducing the number of math courses he taught. Lynch sued the Los Angeles Community College District, alleging age discrimination and retaliation. Lynch claimed that he was teaching two math courses and that his course load was reduced to only one course because of his age. He also claimed he no longer received class offers and was given his first unsatisfactory review in 14 years after he filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Defense counsel contended that there was a seniority list for adjunct professors at the campuses and that there were other teachers that were in the district longer than Lynch and had seniority over him. Counsel also contended that the district’s budget was impacted and that under the collective bargaining agreement, adjunct professors were only entitled to one course per semester. Defense counsel noted that some adjunct professors even lost both of their courses. Defense counsel argued that the district went out of its way to help Lynch. Specifically, counsel contended that district personnel offered to enter Lynch’s grades on the computer for him and re-arranged Lynch’s class schedule, with his consent, to provide a more practical teaching schedule. Counsel also noted that Lynch was the only professor in the district who did not communicate via email and that even though Lynch claimed he never received offers for classes, the district went so far as to send correspondence via certified mail. Thus, defense counsel argued that either Lynch affirmatively rejected the offers or simply never responded to the district regarding his intent to reject the district’s offers of continuing employment. Defense counsel argued that Lynch’s evaluation was based on classroom observations done by an evaluator and based upon student evaluations. Though some of Lynch’s student evaluations were satisfactory, some stated they could not understand or hear Lynch. Defense counsel argued that the latter parts of Lynch’s evaluations were becoming unsatisfactory and that even though a professor who is scored two unsatisfactory evaluations in a row can be let go, Lynch’s employment with the district continued. In addition, defense counsel argued that the evaluators who observed Lynch during his class had no knowledge of his EEOC claim and, therefore, could not have retaliated against him., The plaintiff’s expert economist calculated Lynch’s loss of earnings due to the loss of the second class until the age of 99. Thus, Lynch sought recovery in excess of $300,000 in lost earnings based upon being denied an additional course assignment and a full-time position. Defense counsel noted that the plaintiff’s expert economist’s calculation exceeded past life tables.