This decision affirms a judgment for the plaintiff in an age discrimination and harassment case, rejecting all of the employer’s many arguments.  First, the suit was timely even though the harassment had been on-going for many years.  There was no showing that the harassment had achieved “permanence” so as to prevent continued accrual from renewed harassment.  Permanence comes from employer actions that deny or show a refusal to entertain complaints about the objectionable conduct.  There was no clear evidence of that here.  There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding of liability for discriminatory discharge.  Under the cat’s paw theory, the lower level supervisor who was age biased had sufficient input into the discharge decision as to show the decision was not free from discriminatory motive.  Substantial evidence also supported the finding on the harassment claim.  The employer forfeited its attack on the damage award by not moving for a new trial on the ground of excessive damages; merely stating objections to the proposed statement of decision wasn’t enough to preserve the issue for appeal.  The amount of the attorney fee award was not an abuse of discretion.  The trial court did not err in failing to increase the damage award to account for the unfavorable tax consequences of receiving multiple years’ wages in a single award as there was not sufficiently compelling evidence in plaintiff’s favor on that issue as to show error in the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff had not met her burden of proof on the issue.