In 2008, plaintiff Vito Campese, a professor of medicine and division chief for the Department of Nephrology at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, was in his early 70s. He alleged that during this time, he learned that older, tenured professors, such as himself, were not receiving the same benefits package as younger, non-tenured professors. Campese sued the county of Los Angeles, the University of Southern California, USC Internal Medicine Inc., and Integrated Faculty Practice Plans Inc. Campese alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted age discrimination based on a disparate impact theory. Integrated Faculty was released from the complaint, and the matter continued to trial against the county of Los Angeles and the University of Southern California (USC) only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that when the USC and the county implemented its new physician pay plan, it had a disparate impact against the older workers, Campese in particular. Campese held dual employment as both a tenured professor and Chief of Nephrology with USC, and a physician with the county. Thus, he received compensation from both USC and the county, but his retirement contribution was calculated based only on his salary with the USC. In 2008, the USC and the county offered a new plan by which retirement benefits and contributions would be calculated based on the salaries from both the USC and the county of Los Angeles. Counsel contended that this represented a significant increase in the pension payout. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the new plan was only made available to non-tenured professors and that tenured professors were barred from participating. Counsel contended that as a result, 65 dual employees were affected by the implementation of the new plan — 42 non-tenured faculty members who were deemed eligible and 23 tenured faculty members who were excluded. Counsel further contended that the non-tenured professors were significantly younger (with an average age of 57) than the tenured professors (with an average age of 64). The plaintiff’s statistical analysis expert opined that the seven-year age difference represented a significant statistical disparity. Counsel for the USC and the county argued that the new plan was not discriminatory. The defense’seconomics expert opined that the number of tenured and non-tenured professors was not large enough to derive an accurate statistical disparity., Campese sought recovery of unspecified damages related to the age discrimation. He also sought recovery of punitive damages.