Does the fact that a jury found that an employee of an airport subjected him to an adverse employment action is sufficient to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him a motion for a new trial?

action finding, that fact is insufficient to establish the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial. The trial court was required to consider all the evidence on the cause of action to determine if the verdict (not just one specific factual finding) was against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, even if (as White urges) the airport subjected him to an adverse employment action, the trial court's ruling would not be an abuse of discretion if, for example, there was no evidence of a causal relationship between the adverse action and a discriminatory motive on the part of the airport. (See Candido v. Huitt (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 918, 923 ["In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the court is a trier-of-fact and is not bound by factual resolutions made by the jury"].)⁸