In November 2016, plaintiff Scott Field, 62, was demoted from assistant city attorney to senior deputy city attorney. Prior to his demotion, Field claimed he took time off to obtain treatment for cataracts starting in October 2016. However, he claimed that the city attorney, Michael Gates, would not allow him to make up the time he took off for the cataract surgery. Field claimed that Gates’ response, among other actions, constituted age and disability discrimination. In April 2018, plaintiff Neal Moore, 73, a senior deputy city attorney who acted as trial counsel, was issued a notice of proposed demotion. He claimed that Gates’ decision to demote him, among other actions, constituted age discrimination. Moore also claimed that he was forced to resign from his position as a result of the proposed demotion. Field and Moore sued Gates and Gates’ employer, the city of Huntington Beach. Field and Moore alleged that they were discriminated against based on their age. Field also alleged that he was discriminated against based on his disability. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that shortly after being elected, Gates commenced numerous adverse actions, including taking away authority from Field and Moore, making condescending comments about Field and Moore, using abusive language, and blaming both Field and Moore when things went wrong in litigation. Field and Moore claimed that Gates favored younger individuals, and Moore claimed that he was ultimately replaced as trial counsel by two younger attorneys. They also claimed that there was disparity of treatment between the two groups. Defense counsel contended that Field asked for, and received, all the medical leave he requested in accordance with the city’s policies. However, counsel asserted that Field was demoted, among other things, because of two instances of misconduct, including insubordination and conduct that fell below the standard of care. Counsel contended that Field improperly produced, without screening, a substantial number of emails that had contents that were privileged, nonresponsive, or both in a pending litigation against the city. Defense counsel further contended that Field was issued three successive written reprimands over a nine-month period for poor work performance, including failing to timely complete work assignments after he took time off to obtain cataract treatment. In addition, defense counsel contended that Field was demoted a second time in September 2018 for failing to complete his assigned work and as a result of Field’s ongoing poor performance. Defense counsel asserted that Moore’s proposed demotion was based on three instances of misconduct that fell below the standard of care, including producing privileged documents in a pending litigation against the city, producing a non-discoverable document in a pending litigation against the city, and preparing written discovery responses containing multiple statements that were inconsistent with the city’s statements in disclosed documents. Defense counsel asserted that the plaintiffs’ claims and allegations are entirely unfounded and that Field and Moore were subjected to necessary disciplinary actions because they each made egregious errors that fell below the standard of care. Defense counsel noted that Field’s demotions and Moore’s proposed demotion were supported by human resources and upheld by neutral, third-party hearing officers. Counsel asserted that Gates, from the time he began his tenure as the city attorney to the present, has never made any comment to the plaintiffs or anyone else that either explicitly or implicitly referenced either the plaintiffs’ ages or Field’s alleged disability. Defense counsel added that Field and Moore, apart from filing the lawsuit, never complained to anyone at the city that they were subjected to age or disability discrimination. Instead, defense counsel asserted that the plaintiffs were resistant to the necessary new policies and procedures Gates instituted to rectify past problems, including those arising from the prior city attorney’s inattentiveness and poor management., Field claimed that he suffered a loss of earnings as a result of his demotion. Moore claimed that he suffered a loss of earnings as a result of being forced to resign from his position. They also claimed that they suffer from emotional distress as a result of the alleged events. Moore obtained therapy to deal with his alleged emotional distress.     Field and Moore sought recovery of economic damages for their respective loss of earnings, as well as sought recovery of noneconomic damages for their respective emotional pain and suffering.