Employment; Age Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation
“Thirty Years of Loyalty”
In 1985, Plaintiff Joy Slagel began working for Liberty Mutual Insurance at just 19 years old. Over the next 30 years, Joy worked her way up in the workers’ compensation claims department, consistently receiving favorable performance reviews and praise for her exceptional customer service. Beginning in 2012, a new regional manager began targeting older, long-term employees and replacing them with younger, less expensive hires. After Joy complained to Human Resources about the treatment of older employees, Liberty Mutual began documenting alleged performance deficiencies and ultimately terminated her employment in 2016, purportedly for dishonesty during a customer investigation. Joy maintained that the investigation was a pretext to terminate her because of her age and complaints of discrimination.
The case dealt with the following issues:
1. Plaintiff had virtually no economic damages. Joy secured new employment within approximately one month of her termination, earning more than she had at Liberty Mutual. Plaintiff waived economic damages and proceeded solely on emotional distress damages. This created a significant challenge in obtaining a substantial verdict, particularly because Joy had not experienced any prolonged unemployment or financial hardship.
2. The trial court initially dismissed the entire case on summary judgment. After years of contentious litigation, the trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and imposed more than $100,000 in sanctions against Plaintiff. Plaintiff successfully appealed, obtaining a reversal in 2023. The case proceeded to trial before the same judge who had initially dismissed it.
3. The trial court initially excluded all "me too" witnesses. These witnesses worked in the same office, held similar positions, experienced discrimination by the same manager, and were employed during the same period as Joy. Their testimony was essential to establishing a pattern of age discrimination. After months of litigation, the trial court reversed its exclusionary ruling on the first day of trial, immediately before Plaintiff called her first witness.
4. Defendant possessed substantial documentary evidence supporting its stated reason for termination. Disney, a major Liberty Mutual customer, had repeatedly complained in writing that Joy was dishonest regarding a social media investigation on a workers' compensation claim. Liberty conducted an extensive internal investigation, generating dozens of pages of documentation concluding Joy had lied and falsified company records. Plaintiff needed to demonstrate that this seemingly thorough investigation was pretextual.
5. The strongest evidence of pretext came from a witness no longer employed by Liberty Mutual. During Liberty's investigation, Joy offered to contact her former supervisor, who could corroborate her account of the disputed social media report. Liberty refused. At trial, Plaintiff demonstrated that Liberty's own policies permitted such communications, and the former supervisor testified consistently with Joy's explanation, undermining the central justification for her termination.
6. Defendant denied that the individuals responsible for terminating Joy knew about her protected complaints or age. Liberty maintained that an out-of-state employee who had never met Joy independently made the termination decision. Through internal documents and witness testimony, Plaintiff established the involvement of managers and executives who knew about Joy's discrimination complaints, thereby connecting the adverse employment decision to the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory motives.
7. Plaintiff had to establish discriminatory and retaliatory motives largely through circumstantial evidence. Defendant maintained that Joy was terminated for legitimate performance reasons, rather than her age or complaints. Plaintiff relied on evidence of disparate treatment, the replacement of older employees with younger hires, compensation disparities, the company's stated strategy of hiring young college graduates, and inconsistencies in its investigation to demonstrate pretext.
8. The age discrimination theory required careful presentation to a predominantly younger jury. Eight jurors were in their mid-thirties or younger, including four in their early twenties. Plaintiff needed to ensure the case was understood as one involving unlawful discrimination and retaliation, rather than a conflict between older and younger generations.
Despite the substantial documentary evidence supporting Defendant's stated justification for termination, the jury unanimously found in Plaintiff's favor on age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. After approximately 2.5 hours of deliberation, the jury awarded $20,000,000 in past and future emotional distress damages, exceeding Plaintiff's $16,250,000 request. Following a separate punitive damages phase, the jury deliberated approximately two hours before awarding an additional $83,000,000, bringing the total jury verdict to $103,000,000.