A California jury has ordered Liberty Mutual to pay $103 million to a former employee after finding the insurer violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by discriminating against her based on age.
The award includes $20 million in noneconomic compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages, according to plaintiff firm Shegerian & Associates.
The case was brought by former case manager Joy Slagel, who worked at Liberty Mutual for more than 30 years. Her lawsuit, filed in January 2017, alleged that treatment of older staff changed after a new regional claims manager took over in 2012.
According to the complaint, within several years of that leadership change, multiple employees in their 50s and 60s were forced to resign, and nearly all workers over age 40 were either terminated or pressured to leave. Of about 120 employees in the office, only two were older than 40, the filing said.
Slagel claimed she experienced a series of adverse employment actions during that period. The complaint alleged that team-wide problems were attributed to her individual performance, that she was ignored in the office and then singled out in meetings, and that she was criticized for “setting the bar too high” when pursuing business from Disney, which later raised concerns about the manager’s oversight of its account.
In March 2015, Slagel received a “needs improvement” performance review for the first time in her tenure, according to court filings. Later that year, she received a customer service award for her handling of a large client’s claim; during the ceremony, the regional claims manager allegedly said she “got lucky” and it “would never happen again.”
The complaint said Slagel’s blood pressure condition worsened in 2016, which her doctor linked to workplace stress. She took a short-term disability leave from April 19 to June 29, 2016, approved by Liberty Mutual.
When she returned on June 30, Slagel found her parking card and access badge no longer worked and had to enter using a visitor pass, the filing stated. She was then called into a meeting and terminated effective immediately, with no reason given, and was later replaced by a white male in his late 20s, according to the complaint.
Shegerian & Associates said at trial that Liberty Mutual’s internal investigation into Slagel’s work was manufactured to remove older, higher-paid employees.
“This verdict is a resounding message to corporations nationwide: age discrimination is illegal, it is harmful and juries will hold employers accountable,” Justin Shegerian, lead trial attorney and founder of Shegerian & Associates, said in a statement.
The verdict comes as other insurers also confront discrimination-related allegations, including a federal case accusing State Farm of mishandling an auto claim and discriminating against a Black policyholder under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
In that suit, the plaintiff alleges State Farm “intentionally discriminated against him as an African American” and claims the insurer’s conduct was “willful, wanton, malicious, and taken with reckless indifference,” seeking both compensatory and punitive damages along with a jury trial.
Employment disputes are also feeding into coverage litigation, as seen in a Mississippi nonprofit’s lawsuit against USLI over management liability coverage for harassment, discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge claims by a former executive.
The nonprofit alleges USLI “failed to honor its obligations under a management liability policy” and did not properly respond under the policy’s employment practices coverage part, highlighting how workplace claims can evolve into disputes over insurers’ duty to defend and indemnify.
