Case Background
Joy Slagel, a 49-year-old mother and longtime claims department employee, filed this lawsuit against her employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, along with individual supervisors Ariam Alemseghed and Leann Lo, on January 26, 2017, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Slagel worked at Liberty Mutual for more than 30 years and was commended throughout her career for exemplary performance, dedication, and loyalty to the claims department.
Cause
Slagel alleged that after Alemseghed was promoted to regional claims manager in or around 2012, the work environment changed dramatically. Over the next couple of years, approximately six employees, all in their 50s and 60s, were forced to resign. Steve Brock, an employee in his early 60s, was discharged in 2014. Anthony Beliso, a man in his late 50s, was discharged in December of 2014. Anna Lopez, an employee in her early 50s, was discharged in June of 2015. Eventually, of the approximately 120 employees who worked in the department, only two were over the age of 40 one of them was Slagel.
Slagel further alleged that Alemseghed singled her out during meetings, ignored her while greeting every other employee, and criticized her unfairly. In March of 2015, Slagel received a "needs improvement" performance review for the first time in her 30-year career. Her supervisor, Craig Ballard, told her the negative rating was not his decision and attributed it entirely to Alemseghed.
Slagel complained to management about the age-based treatment. She filed complaints with Glenn Shapiro and with her team manager Ballard about Alemseghed's conduct, stating she felt targeted because of her older age. Those complaints were not addressed.
In January of 2016, Defendant Leann Lo, a new manager, called Slagel into her office and accused her of speaking negatively about the company. Slagel denied this, pointing to her 30-year record. In April of 2016, Lo and team manager Krikorian called Slagel into the office regarding a Disney workers' compensation claim, raising concerns about a missing social media report. The company then informed Slagel she was barred from participating in a two-day claims review with Disneyland and that an investigation would take place.
Slagel suffered from high blood pressure, which worsened in the spring of 2016 due to the hostile work environment. Her doctor, Dr. Lakhani, recommended she take medical leave. She was approved for short-term disability leave from April 19 to June 29, 2016. During that leave, her team manager Krikorian contacted her and requested the return of her laptop through a courier.
Injury
Upon Slagel's return on June 30, 2016, her parking card and badge did not grant her access. She entered the parking structure with a visitor's pass. Lo, along with Alemseghed and human resources representative Laura Close, terminated her employment immediately and provided no reason for the discharge. Slagel was soon replaced by a young, Caucasian male in his late 20s. The complaint stated her employment was terminated for illegal reasons based on her age and disability after 31 years of loyal service at Liberty Mutual.
Damages Sought
Slagel sought general and special damages according to proof, exemplary and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. The amount demanded exceeded $25,000.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Joy Slagel
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq
Defendant: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Ariam Alemseghed, and Leann Lo
· Counsel for Defendant (Leann Lo): Yvonne Arvanitis Fossati | Thomas G. Mackey | Dorothy L. Black | Evanson Blaine Hill
Claims
Slagel brought twelve causes of action in her complaint.
Age Discrimination in Violation of FEHA: Slagel alleged that Liberty Mutual, through its managers and supervisors, engaged in actions that negatively impacted employees over the age of 40 — discharging older employees at greater frequency, hiring fewer workers over 40, and giving better jobs and benefits to younger employees. She alleged her age was a substantial motivating factor in her termination.
Age Harassment in Violation of FEHA: Slagel alleged that Defendants created a hostile work environment based on her age by singling her out, ignoring her, and criticizing her without justification.
Retaliation for Complaints of Age Discrimination: Slagel alleged that her complaints about age-based treatment motivated the Defendants' decision to terminate her employment and take other adverse actions against her.
Discrimination on the Basis of Taking Disability Leave: Slagel alleged that Defendants used her disability and need for medical leave as an excuse to terminate her employment.
Retaliation for Taking Disability Leave: Slagel alleged her protected leave was a motivating factor in her discharge.
Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation: Slagel alleged that Liberty Mutual wholly failed to attempt any reasonable accommodation of her known disability.
Failure to Engage in Interactive Process: Slagel alleged the Defendants failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to accommodate her known disabilities and instead terminated her employment.
Breach of Express Oral Contract: Slagel alleged the Defendants entered into an oral agreement not to terminate her employment except for good cause and breached that agreement.
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract: Slagel alleged that based on oral assurances, her length of employment, and the company's practices, an implied contract existed that her employment could only be terminated for cause.
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy: Slagel alleged her termination violated fundamental public policies underlying FEHA and California Labor Code section 1102.5.
Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5: Slagel alleged she raised complaints of illegality and was retaliated against through discrimination, harassment, and termination.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Slagel alleged the Defendants' discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory actions constituted severe and outrageous misconduct that caused her extreme emotional distress.
Defense
Defendant Leann Lo, through Jackson Lewis P.C., filed a general denial of all allegations on March 23, 2017. Lo denied that the Plaintiff suffered any injury or damage whatsoever. The defense raised twenty-nine affirmative defenses, which included failure to state sufficient facts, workers' compensation exclusivity, the after-acquired evidence doctrine, statute of limitations, failure to mitigate damages, comparative fault, good faith and legitimate business reasons for all actions taken, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, managerial immunity, and the argument that punitive damages were unconstitutional. The defense also asserted that Slagel's perception of harassment was unreasonable and that the Defendant never adopted, ratified, or condoned the conduct alleged in the complaint.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its Phase I General Verdict with Special Finding on December 3, 2025, before the Honorable Jon R. Takasugi. The presiding juror signed the verdict form on that date.
On the cause of action for age discrimination, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff Joy Slagel and against Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. On the cause of action for age harassment, the jury found in favor of Slagel and against Liberty Mutual. On the cause of action for retaliation for complaints of age discrimination in violation of FEHA, the jury again found in favor of Slagel and against Liberty Mutual.
The jury awarded Slagel $15,000,000 in past non-economic loss and $5,000,000 in future non-economic loss, for a total compensatory damages award of $20,000,000.
The jury also answered "Yes" to the special finding question of whether Liberty Mutual Insurance Company engaged in, authorized, or ratified conduct constituting malice, oppression, and/or fraud.
On December 5, 2025, the jury returned its Phase II General Verdict with Special Finding on punitive damages. The jury assessed punitive damages against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in the amount of $83,000,000.
The total jury award in this case came to $103,000,000 comprising $20,000,000 in compensatory damages and $83,000,000 in punitive damages.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
