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.”