The Case

• Case Name: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual
• Court and Case Number: Los Angeles County Superior Court / BC648246
• Date of Verdict or Judgment: Friday, December 05, 2025
• Date Action was Filed: Monday, January 09, 2017
• Type of Case: Employment, Harassment, Wrongful Termination
• Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
• Plaintiffs:
  Joy Slagel
• Defendants:
  Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
• Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

• Gross Verdict or Award: $103,000,000
• Award as to each Defendant:$83 million in punitive damages and $20 million in compensatory damages,
• Non-Economic Damages:$20,000,000
• Punitive Damages:$83,000,000
• Trial or Arbitration Time: 4 weeks
• Jury Deliberation Time: 2 1/2 hours for phase 1, and 2 hours for phase 2
• Jury Polls: Unanimous verdict

The Attorneys

• Attorney for the Plaintiff:

  Shegerian & Associates by Justin Shegerian, Mahru Madjidi, Aaron Gbewonyo and Deepika Chandrashekar, Los Angeles.

• Attorney for the Defendant:

  Jackson Lewis PC by Yvonne Arvanitis Fossati and Thomas G. Mackey,, Los Angeles.

  Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP by Dorothy L. Black, San Diego.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:Plaintiff began working for Liberty Mutual in 1985 at age 19 and spent more than 30 years with the company. Over her career, she held multiple administrative roles and ultimately worked as a workers’ compensation claims adjuster for nearly two decades.Things changed in 2012 when a new regional claims manager took over. Multiple longtime, older employees – including plaintiff – testified that older workers were increasingly targeted, pushed out, or forced to resign, while younger new hires were favored. Younger employees received recognition and attention, while older employees were ignored or marginalized.After returning to work, plaintiff made complaints to Liberty Mutual’s leadership and HR, alleging age discrimination and a pattern of replacing older, higher-paid employees with younger, lower-paid workers. Liberty never followed up or took corrective action. Evidence showed the company saved tens of thousands of dollars per employee by replacing older workers, and internal documents referred to hiring “young college hires” as a strategy.About a year later, Liberty terminated plaintiff after an investigation triggered by complaints from Disney, alleging dishonesty related to a social media check on a claim. Plaintiff explained that her former supervisor had handled the matter and offered to have him confirm her account. Liberty refused to contact him, despite company policy allowing such communication.
• Although Liberty concluded plaintiff was dishonest and falsified records, her former supervisor later testified under oath that plaintiff’s account was truthful. Despite this, plaintiff was fired around the age of 49. 
• Following her complaints, management labeled plaintiff a “bad seed” and made negative remarks about her internally.
• In 2015, plaintiff received her first negative performance review in 30 years, issued by the regional manager over the objection of plaintiff’s direct supervisor. The stress impacted plaintiff’s health, forcing her to take medical leave.
• Throughout her employment, plaintiff consistently received performance reviews that met expectations and repeatedly praised her for “top tier” customer service, including from major clients like Disney.
• Plaintiff's Contentions:Plaintiff claimed Liberty engaged in age discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination.As to the claim plaintiff lied to the client, Disney, a Disney executive testified to the effect that plaintiff was never dishonest with Disney. 
• As to a pattern of age discrimination, harassment and retaliation of older employees, plaintiff offered testimony from other long-term Liberty Mutual employees who had been fired after 2012.
• That Liberty Mutual’s investigation leading to Slagel’s termination was manufactured as a pretext to silence her and remove older, higher-paid employees from the company.
• Defendant's Contentions:Defendant claimed their reason for firing plaintiff was due to her falsification of records.

Demands and Offers

• Plaintiff §998 Demand: $1,999,999 in 2019