$50M Punitives Award Tossed in Lockheed Martin Age Discrimination Case
A $50 million punitive damages award against Lockheed Martin in a former employee's age discrimination suit is a "miscarriage of justice," a Camden, New Jersey, federal judge said when she ordered a new trial on punitive damages only.
December 19, 2017 at 03:38 PM
4 minute read
A $50 million punitive damages award against Lockheed Martin in a former employee's age discrimination suit is a “miscarriage of justice,” a Camden, New Jersey, federal judge said when she ordered a new trial on punitive damages only.
U.S. District Judge Renee Bumb declined to disrupt the jury's award of $1.5 million for lost wages and benefits, emotional distress and liquidated damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. But she said the $50 million punitive damages award was a shock to the conscience and was not warranted because the plaintiff failed to show that upper management was involved in or indifferent to the discriminatory conduct.
“Defendant argues that the jury's decision on the issue of 'actual participation' or 'willful indifference' of 'upper management' is so contrary to the weight of the evidence that allowing it to stand would be a miscarriage of justice. The Court agrees,” Bumb said.
The plaintiff based his case for punitive damages on the actions of Norm Malnak, the vice president of the division where Robert Braden worked, as the only member of Lockheed's upper management identified at trial who could have had a role in Braden's termination. Braden's council pointed out that Malnak's name, along with the names of several other vice presidents and directors, were on the cover page of a company report that made recommendations for a reduction in force. But Braden offered no evidence that Malnak took part in planning the reduction in force, Bumb said.
“Standing alone, Malnak's name on the title slide of this PowerPoint presentation is not clear and convincing evidence of 'active participation' in or 'willful indifference' to discrimination,” Bumb said.
Bumb set Feb. 6, 2018, as the date for the retrial on punitive damages.
The case, Braden v. Lockheed Martin, was brought by a man who was laid off at age 66 in 2012. Braden began working at the Moorestown facility in 1984, when it was owned by RCA, and he remained there as it came under various owners due to mergers and acquisitions. He became a Lockheed Martin employee in 1995. The plant makes weapons guidance systems for the U.S. military.
Braden, who held the title of project specialist, senior staff at the Moorestown facility, claimed the company had a practice of laying off older workers while hiring younger employees for the same position. Braden's suit claimed that 110 people at the Moorestown facility held the title of project specialist at the time, and five were laid off, including him. All five were over the age of 50.
The jury verdict was issued Jan. 27, 2017, following a four-day trial before Bumb. The jury awarded plaintiff $520,000 for lost wages and benefits, $520,000 for emotional distress, and $50 million in punitive damages. He also received $520,000 in liquidated damages pursuant to the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §626(b).
Of the six people reporting to his manager, Braden claimed, he was the oldest and the only one who was laid off. The others ranged in age from 35 to 52, he claimed.
And while laying him off, the company continued to hire new employees for positions that he was qualified for, his suit said.
Braden was represented by Rahul Munshi of Console Mattiacci Law in Philadelphia. The firm's Stephen Console said in a statement about the ruling: “Plaintiff welcomes the opportunity for a punitive damages-only trial against Lockheed Martin and is very pleased that all of Lockheed Martin's efforts to overturn the age discrimination verdict and reduce the $1,560,000 non-punitive damages award (including $520,000 for pain and suffering) failed. The first jury awarded $50,000,000 in punitive damages—we'll see what the second jury awards.”
Lockheed Martin was represented by Anjanette Cabrera of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete in New York and Tamika Nordstrom, in the Atlanta office of the same firm. They were joined by attorneys from Williams & Connolly in Washington.
Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Sharon Parsley said in a statement about the ruling, “Lockheed Martin is committed to the highest standards of ethics and integrity. We are pleased the verdict was vacated, and we take seriously our responsibility to provide a safe and inclusive workplace for all employees and prohibit discrimination in any form.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Warn: Little-Noticed Report Could Spell Bad News for Employers
6 minute readDon't Rush to Change That Noncompete Just Yet, Employment Lawyers Advise
5 minute readDoes Free Speech Trump Confidentiality in Harrassment Investigations?
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250