In Begnal v. Canfield & Associates, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 66, the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the theory that plaintiff's replacement, an older worker in the same protected class, precluded, as a matter of law, the inference that plaintiff was terminated based upon age. (Id., at p. 73.) The Court of Appeal reversed on the ground that other evidence supported the inference that plaintiff was terminated based upon her age. (Id., at pp. 76-78.) The court noted that a jury could just as easily infer that the replacement (an older person) was hired to protect against an anticipated claim of age discrimination. (Id., at p. 76.) The Bengal court cited Wright v. Southland Corp. (11th Cir. 1999) 187 F.3d 1287, the Court explained why an age inference may not be dispositive: "'Imagine a situation in which a racist personnel manager for a corporation fires an employee because he is African American. Shortly thereafter, the racist personnel manager is replaced, and the previously terminated employee is replaced by another African American. Under these circumstances, the first individual would have been a victim of illegal discrimination, despite the fact that his replacement was of the same race.' (Id. at p. 1292.) As this example illustrates, to hold that evidence that an employee is replaced by an older person conclusively establishes the absence of age discrimination would provide an employer who had actually discriminated based upon age with an absolute defense." (Id., at p. 74.)