Truck Company’s Defense of Age Discrimination Claim Runs Into a Ditch
In June, a jury imposed a $1.2 million damage award against Daimler in Oregon state court, according to a report from The Oregonian. The judge ruled that because the defendant willfully and in bad faith refused to provide critical evidence consisting of PowerPoint presentations about tactics for reducing its workforce to the plaintiff’s attorneys, the company was liable for age discrimination. The judge left it up to the jury to decide the damages. Here’s what led up to the court’s decision. In 2014, then 58-year-old engineer Josef Loczi filed a lawsuit against Daimler, his former employer, asserting that the company laid him off earlier that year and refused to hire him into another position because of his age, according to The Oregonian. His legal complaint stated the following facts:- Loczi started working for the company in 1997 and worked in various management positions over the years. In 1999, Loczi was promoted to senior project engineer and built the company’s ergonomics department.
- During his time with the company, Loczi “received excellent performance evaluations and his initiatives received widespread company support.” He was not told of any performance problems or put on a performance-improvement plan during his tenure.
- In 2012, Loczi was made the manager of engineering strategy and market intelligence, reporting to Randy DeBortoli, Daimler’s chief engineer of cab systems.
- The next year, Wilfried Achenbach, Daimler’s senior vice president of engineering and technology, held a meeting with his chief engineers, including DeBortoli.
- Achenbach “instructed them to each identify four ‘Level 4’ managers to force out of the company. The vast majority of the Level 4 managers subsequently identified for termination by the Chief Engineers were over the age of 50.”
- Loczi was a Level 4 manager. In November 2013, the company informed Loczi that his position was being eliminated. DeBortoli told him that his work performance and conduct had nothing to do with the decision. At trial, Daimler disputed this fact, claiming his performance did play a role in his termination.
- Loczi was told he could apply for other jobs within the company. He did so 16 times unsuccessfully.
- His lawsuit sought $1.5 million for lost wages, $250,000 for lost fringe benefits, and $2 million for mental and emotional distress and damage to his reputation.
Summing It Up
Both sides need to play by the rules when it comes to turning over evidence. A lawsuit may be won or lost not on the facts or law of the case but by the order of a judge who decides a party is acting in bad faith and not following the rules. Not complying with a court’s order instructing a party to turn over evidence can have a host of negative results:- dismissal of the claim,
- entry of judgment against the defendant,
- the exclusion of testimony of expert or other witnesses, or
- instructions to the jury to draw adverse inferences against the noncompliant party.

