From $103 Million to $20 Million: Judge Vacates Record Punitive Damages Award in Age Discrimination Case
Executive Summary
In December 2025, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury returned what plaintiff’s counsel described as the largest age discrimination verdict in United States history: $103 million against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The jury found that Liberty Mutual had engaged in age-based harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against Joy Slagel, a 30-year employee who was terminated the day she returned from disability leave. The verdict included $20 million in compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages.
On May 12, 2026, Judge Jon R. Takasugi issued a post-trial order that dramatically reshaped the outcome. While upholding the $20 million compensatory award in full, Judge Takasugi vacated the entire $83 million punitive damages award, finding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of corporate malice at the level necessary to sustain punitive damages of that magnitude. The judgment now stands at $20 million.
The case’s procedural history adds another layer of significance. Slagel’s claims were initially dismissed on summary judgment, with the trial court imposing $70,000 in sanctions against her. The California Court of Appeal reversed in 2023, finding triable issues of fact on the age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, as well as on the question of whether a biased supervisor’s animus infected the termination decision through a “cat’s paw” theory of liability.
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Jury Verdict — December 3–5, 2025 | |
| Past Noneconomic Damages | $15,000,000 |
| Future Noneconomic Damages | $5,000,000 |
| Compensatory Subtotal | $20,000,000 |
| Punitive Damages (Phase 2) | $83,000,000 |
| Total Jury Verdict | $103,000,000 |
| Post-Trial Order — May 12, 2026 | |
| Compensatory Damages (Upheld) | $20,000,000 |
| Punitive Damages (Vacated) | $83,000,000 |
| Current Judgment | $20,000,000 |
Case Information
Case Name: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Case Number: BC648246
Judge: Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
Type of Case: Age Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation (California FEHA)
Date Filed: January 2017
Verdict Date: December 3–5, 2025
Post-Trial Order: May 12, 2026
Trial Duration: 4 weeks
Jury Deliberation: 2½ hours (Phase 1, compensatory); 2 hours (Phase 2, punitive)
Verdict: Unanimous on both phases
Parties
Plaintiff: Joy Slagel, former Senior Case Manager at Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Slagel worked at Liberty Mutual for over 30 years, beginning in 1985 at age 19, and most recently managed workers’ compensation claims including the company’s Walt Disney Company account.
Defendant: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Individual defendants Ariam Alemseghed (Regional Claims Manager) and Leann Lo (Claims Manager) were also named in the original complaint.
Counsel
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shegerian & Associates, Los Angeles — Justin Shegerian (first chair), Mahru Madjidi, Aaron Gbewonyo, and Deepika Chandrashekar. Carney R. Shegerian and Anthony Nguyen of Shegerian & Associates handled the appeal.
Defendant’s Counsel: Jackson Lewis PC, Los Angeles — Yvonne Arvanitis Fossati and Thomas G. Mackey. Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, San Diego — Dorothy L. Black.
Key Findings
Jury Verdict (December 2025):
• The jury found Liberty Mutual liable for age-based harassment, age discrimination, and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
• $15,000,000 — Past noneconomic damages
• $5,000,000 — Future noneconomic damages
• $83,000,000 — Punitive damages (Phase 2)
• $103,000,000 — Total jury verdict
Post-Trial Order (May 12, 2026):
• Judge Takasugi upheld the $20 million compensatory damages award, finding it supported by substantial evidence.
• Judge Takasugi vacated the entire $83 million punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of corporate malice.
• $20,000,000 — Current judgment
Pre-Trial Demand:
• Plaintiff’s Code of Civil Procedure § 998 demand: $1,999,999 (2019)
Factual Background
Joy Slagel began working for Liberty Mutual in 1985 at age 19. Over the next three decades, she held multiple roles within the company and spent nearly two decades as a workers’ compensation claims adjuster, most recently holding the title of Senior Case Manager. Throughout her career, Slagel received consistently positive performance evaluations from supervisors, colleagues, and clients, and she managed high-profile accounts including the Walt Disney Company’s workers’ compensation portfolio.
The 2012 Management Change
According to the evidence presented at trial, the workplace dynamics at Liberty Mutual’s Glendale claims department shifted significantly in 2012, when Ariam Alemseghed was promoted to Regional Claims Manager. Multiple longtime employees testified that after the management change, older workers were increasingly targeted, marginalized, and forced out, while younger new hires were favored with recognition and opportunities. Within several years of Alemseghed’s promotion, nearly all employees over the age of 40 in the department had been either terminated or pressured to resign. Of approximately 120 employees in the office, only two were over 40.
The financial dimension of this pattern was significant. Evidence showed that senior employees were paid approximately $85,000 to $95,000 per year, while Liberty Mutual was replacing them with recent college graduates earning $50,000 to $55,000. Internal documents referred to a strategy of hiring “young college hires,” and the company saved tens of thousands of dollars per employee through the replacements.
Internal Complaints and Escalating Hostility
In March 2015, Slagel wrote to Liberty’s Vice President and Chief Claim Officer, Glenn Shapiro, complaining that Alemseghed mistreated her and other long-term employees “in a manner that lacked dignity and respect.” She also reported concerns about retaliation, noting Alemseghed’s close relationship with Virginia Bennett, Liberty’s Human Resources Generalist. Slagel received no response.
In June 2015, Slagel told HR Manager Michael Polk that 15 employees had left in the prior 12 months and that Alemseghed wanted long-term employees to leave so she could hire recent college graduates. Nothing was done. In January 2016, after Claims Manager Leann Lo became Slagel’s direct supervisor, Lo accused Slagel of speaking negatively about Liberty Mutual and warned her. Slagel testified that Lo and Alemseghed subsequently inundated her with work and shunned and ostracized her.
Two episodes illustrate the treatment Slagel described. In March 2015, Alemseghed instructed Slagel’s then-supervisor, Team Manager Craig Ballard, to give Slagel a “needs improvement” rating on her annual performance assessment—her first negative review in 30 years. Ballard told Slagel he had not wanted to issue the rating but was directed to do so by Alemseghed. When Slagel asked Alemseghed about it, Alemseghed said that because of Slagel’s “tenure,” she would be held to “higher expectations.” Then in November 2015, Slagel received a Customer Service Award for her handling of a large client’s claim. At the ceremony, Alemseghed told her, “You just got lucky, it will never happen again.”
The Social Media Report Dispute
The triggering event for Slagel’s termination involved a relatively minor workplace dispute over a social media background check requested by Disney. The facts of this dispute were central to the case and were explored in detail at both the appellate and trial levels.
In April 2015, during a claims review meeting between Liberty Mutual and Disney representatives, Disney’s Stephanie Conner requested a social media check on a workers’ compensation claimant. Slagel’s then-supervisor, Craig Ballard, performed the check on the spot using his laptop, searching through Intelius, Spokeo, and Facebook. He found nothing indicating the claimant was active outside of medical restrictions and reported the negative results verbally during the meeting, in the presence of both Slagel and Conner. However, Ballard did not enter a formal note of his findings into the claimant’s file.
When Conner raised the same social media check request again in August 2015 and March 2016, Slagel reminded her that Ballard had already performed the search. On March 24, 2016, after the most recent request, Slagel formally submitted a new social media report request through Liberty’s system—for the first time creating a formal record of the check. She filed the request under the “Medical” category rather than “Investigation,” which meant the client could not see it through Liberty’s Risktrac tracking system. Conner subsequently complained to Slagel’s management that Slagel had been dishonest about whether the original check had been completed.
The Investigation and Termination
Liberty Mutual launched an investigation. HR Generalist Virginia Bennett interviewed Slagel by telephone. Slagel explained that Ballard had performed the social media search during the April 2015 meeting and suggested that Bennett contact Ballard to confirm her account. Bennett refused to contact Ballard and forbade Slagel from doing so—a decision that would become a focal point at trial, given that company policy permitted such communication.
When asked why she had filed the request under “Medical” rather than “Investigation,” Slagel responded that she categorized it that way because the client would be unable to see it. Bennett treated this as an admission of concealment.
Bennett prepared a “Situation Analysis” report recommending termination and sent it to Gabriel Williams, Liberty’s Employee Relations Consultant, who had authority to approve terminations. The Situation Analysis noted Slagel’s age, the fact that she was currently on leave, and Slagel’s belief that the company was “setting her up because she is a 30-year employee.” Bennett emailed the analysis at 5:19 p.m. on June 10, 2016. Williams approved the termination 32 minutes later, at 5:51 p.m., replying: “Termination for cause approved.”
Slagel had gone on short-term disability leave on April 19, 2016, for hypertension, coronary artery disease, and panic attacks related to work stress. While she was on leave, a courier was sent to retrieve her company laptop—without explanation. On June 30, 2016, the day Slagel returned from leave, she found that her parking card and employee badge had been deactivated. She entered the building using a visitor pass, was immediately called into a conference room, and was terminated effective immediately with no reason given. She was later replaced by a white male in his late 20s.
At trial, Ballard—the supervisor whom Bennett had refused to contact—testified under oath that Slagel’s account of the April 2015 social media search was truthful. A Disney executive also testified that Slagel had never been dishonest with Disney. Following Slagel’s complaints about discrimination, management had internally labeled her a “bad seed.”
Procedural History
The procedural journey of this case is itself a significant part of the story. Slagel filed suit in January 2017, alleging age discrimination, age harassment, retaliation, disability discrimination, retaliation for taking disability leave, breach of contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the California FEHA and common law.
Liberty Mutual moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it in full. The court also imposed $70,000 in sanctions against Slagel’s counsel. For any plaintiff, having claims dismissed at summary judgment with sanctions imposed is a devastating result.
Shegerian & Associates appealed. In June 2023, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reversed in a detailed opinion that found numerous triable issues of material fact. The appellate court held that Slagel had presented sufficient evidence that Liberty Mutual’s stated reason for termination—the social media report dispute—could be viewed as pretextual. The court noted her decades of positive reviews, the relatively minor nature of the Disney incident, Liberty’s refusal to interview the key witness (Ballard) who could have confirmed Slagel’s account, and the disproportionately severe disciplinary response.
Critically, the appellate court also addressed the “cat’s paw” theory of liability. The trial court had found that because Bennett and Williams—not Alemseghed—made the termination decision, and because there was no evidence that Bennett or Williams harbored discriminatory animus, Slagel’s claims failed. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that a jury could reasonably conclude that Alemseghed’s age-based animus infected the termination decision through Bennett, who relied on Alemseghed’s characterizations of Slagel’s conduct. Williams, in turn, relied solely on Bennett’s Situation Analysis and approved the termination in approximately 30 minutes. The appellate court noted that Williams’s “deliberations were brief, perhaps perfunctory,” and that he could not recall having meaningfully considered the facts underlying the termination recommendation.
The case was remanded for trial. The four-week trial in November–December 2025 culminated in the unanimous verdict across both phases.
Analysis
Slagel v. Liberty Mutual illustrates the full arch of the dynamics of high-stakes employment litigation from complaint through post-trial motions.
The Punitive Damages Ruling
The most immediately significant development is Judge Takasugi’s decision to vacate the $83 million punitive damages award while leaving the $20 million compensatory verdict intact. Under California law, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). Where the defendant is a corporate employer, the plaintiff must also satisfy Civil Code § 3294(b), which requires proof that the wrongful conduct was “authorized or ratified” by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation—or that such a person was “guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”
The court’s ruling suggests that while the jury’s findings on liability—that Liberty Mutual engaged in age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation—were supported by substantial evidence, the evidence fell short of demonstrating the corporate-level authorization or ratification of malicious conduct required to sustain punitive damages. This is a meaningful distinction. A jury can find that a company discriminated against an employee and still fall short of the higher evidentiary threshold for punitive damages, particularly where the wrongful conduct is attributed primarily to mid-level managers rather than corporate officers or managing agents.
For plaintiff’s attorneys, this ruling underscores the importance of building a punitive damages case that traces the wrongful conduct up the corporate chain. Evidence that frontline or regional managers acted with discriminatory animus may be sufficient to establish liability, but punitive damages under § 3294(b) require connecting that conduct to individuals with sufficient corporate authority to be deemed “managing agents”—or proving that such individuals ratified the discriminatory conduct after the fact. The full reasoning of Judge Takasugi’s order was not yet publicly available at the time of this writing, but the outcome suggests this corporate ratification showing is where the plaintiff’s case fell short despite the overwhelming jury verdict on liability.
The Cat’s Paw at Trial
The cat’s paw theory was central to this case from the appellate stage forward. The 2023 Court of Appeal opinion laid out the framework with precision: Alemseghed, the Regional Claims Manager who allegedly harbored age-based animus, lacked the authority to terminate employees. The termination was formally approved by Williams, an Employee Relations Consultant who communicated only with Bennett (HR) and relied exclusively on Bennett’s Situation Analysis. The appellate court found that a jury could reasonably conclude that Alemseghed’s bias “tainted” the decision-making chain—that Bennett’s recommendation was shaped by Alemseghed’s characterizations of Slagel, and Williams’s approval was shaped by Bennett’s recommendation.
The jury’s unanimous verdict on liability confirms that the theory worked at trial. For practitioners, this case reinforces that insulating a biased supervisor from the formal termination decision does not immunize the employer from liability if the bias infects the decision-making process. Defense counsel should note that the 30-minute turnaround on Williams’s approval—and his inability to recall having meaningfully evaluated the facts—made it considerably easier for the plaintiff to argue that the formal decision-maker was merely a rubber stamp for a process contaminated by discriminatory animus.
Pretextual Termination and the “Trivial Incident” Problem
The social media report dispute at the center of Liberty Mutual’s stated justification for Slagel’s termination was, by any measure, a minor incident. Even the Disney representative who initially raised the concern acknowledged, as memorialized in internal communications, that the social media check “was not a major point or factor” in the underlying claim. Yet Liberty Mutual treated the incident as grounds for immediate termination of a 30-year employee.
The disproportionality between the alleged misconduct and the disciplinary response is a familiar signpost for pretext in employment litigation. When an employer responds to a relatively minor performance issue with the most severe disciplinary action available—particularly against a long-tenured employee with an otherwise clean record—the inference of pretext becomes difficult to rebut. Here, that inference was strengthened by Liberty’s refusal to contact the supervisor who could have corroborated Slagel’s version of events, the speed and conclusory nature of the termination approval, and the fact that the termination was executed on the day Slagel returned from disability leave.
The Procedural Comeback
For plaintiff’s attorneys, the procedural history of this case is worth studying carefully. Slagel’s claims were dismissed on summary judgment with sanctions. Her counsel appealed and obtained a detailed reversal from the Court of Appeal that identified multiple areas where the trial court failed to draw inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. On remand, the case went to trial and produced a nine-figure verdict. The journey from a sanctions order to a $103 million verdict—even if subsequently reduced to $20 million—is extraordinary and speaks to the value of appellate advocacy in employment cases where the trial court may have been too quick to credit the employer’s narrative.
That said, the post-trial reduction also illustrates a reality that plaintiff’s attorneys must account for in advising clients and evaluating cases: large punitive damages awards are frequently reduced or vacated by trial courts and on appeal, particularly when the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is high. Here, the jury’s $83 million punitive award was more than four times the $20 million compensatory verdict, a ratio that—while within the range California courts have permitted—invites close judicial scrutiny.
Looking Ahead
With the punitive damages vacated, the case stands at a $20 million judgment. Whether Slagel’s counsel will appeal the post-trial ruling, whether Liberty Mutual will appeal the remaining $20 million compensatory award, or whether the parties will negotiate a resolution remains to be seen.