Anderson v. U.S. Bancorp

• Decision Date: 24 April 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-3216.,06-3216.
• Citation: 484 F.3d 1027
• Parties: John T. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. U.S. BANCORP, a Delaware corporation; U.S. Bancorp Middle Management Change In Control Severance Pay Program; U.S. Bancorp Severance Administration Committee, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

484 F.3d 1027

John T. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. U.S. BANCORP, a Delaware corporation; U.S. Bancorp Middle Management Change In Control Severance Pay Program; U.S. Bancorp Severance Administration Committee, Appellees.

No. 06-3216.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 13, 2007.

Filed: April 24, 2007.

Clair E. Schaff, argued, Cambridge, MN (Eric D. Satre, Cambridge, MN, on the brief), for appellant.

Stephen P. Lucke, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Andrew J. Holly, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for appellees.

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, John T. Anderson, appeals from the order of the district court¹ granting summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bancorp, U.S. Bancorp Middle Management Change in Control Severance Pay Program and the U.S. Bancorp Severance Administration Committee ("the Committee"), with respect to Anderson's claim for severance benefits under the U.S. Bancorp Middle Management Change in Control Severance Pay Program ("the Plan") pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1132(a)(1)(B). The district court found that the Committee's determination that Anderson was discharged for cause from his position of employment with U.S. Bancorp and thus was not eligible for severance benefits was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

I.

The factual setting for the present action is succinctly summarized in this Court's opinion in a related case, Johnson v. U.S. Bancorp Broad-Based Change in Control Severance Pay Program, 424 F.3d 734, 736 (8th Cir.2005):

Around the time of [Anderson's] termination, U.S. Bancorp was involved in a merger with Firstar Corporation. U.S. Bancorp, in an effort to retain a number of valued employees in the face of the uncertainty caused by the pending merger, offered certain of them a severance plan (the "Plan") providing for severance pay in the event they were terminated as a result of the merger. The Plan provided that employees terminated for "Cause" would not receive severance pay under the Plan. Cause was defined in relevant part as follows:

[G]ross and willful misconduct during the course of employment ... including, but not limited to, theft, assault, battery, malicious destruction of property, arson, sabotage, embezzlement, harassment, acts or omissions which violate the Employer's rules or policies (such as breaches of confidentiality), or other conduct which demonstrates a willful or reckless disregard of the interests of the Employer or its Affiliates ... Circumstances constituting Cause shall be determined in the sole discretion of [U.S. Bancorp].

Employees who were terminated without cause within twenty-four months of the merger were eligible for severance payments of up to the equivalent of 104 weeks' salary.

Anderson was a long time employee of U.S. Bank, a subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp, and was a participant in the Plan. Anderson was employed as a lead financial analyst in the Consumer Banking and Payment Services division of U.S. Bank. His supervisor was Mark Fields. A separate division of U.S. Bank, the Business Line Reporting & Planning Division, was headed by Kathy Ashcraft. Ashcraft's subordinates included Lynn Sato, Jason Albeck, and Burcin Iz.

In 2002, following the U.S. Bancorp/Firstar merger, Anderson had conversations with Iz and Albeck hinting that Anderson was privy to information as to personnel changes and modification of responsibilities in both the division in which Anderson worked and Ashcraft's division. These comments were reported to Ashcraft who became concerned because Anderson's comments implied that he indeed possessed knowledge of Ashcraft's confidential, planned personnel changes within her division. Ashcraft suspected that such information had been improperly obtained from her individual computer files, specifically an organization chart contained in a folder in the Corporate Analysis and Planning ("CAP") drive of the U.S. Bank document management system. The CAP drive of the U.S. Bank document management system included personal folders for Ashcraft and other employees that were labeled with the employee's name. Under the U.S. Bank system, such folders were not password protected or otherwise secure and could be accessed by certain other U.S. Bank employees, including Anderson.

Ashcraft notified Jenny Morgan, an employee in the Human Resources Division, who instituted an investigation. The Information Security Department examined Ashcraft's computer files and was able to determine the last individual to access each of Ashcraft's personal files. These included: John Anderson who last accessed the 2002 Consolidated Salary Reconciliation File (the "salary file"), Nancy Johnson who last accessed a 2002 Performance Goals File and other personal files, and, Lynn Sato, who last accessed Ashcraft's Final Merit and Incentive File.

On April 19, 2002, Morgan called Anderson and left a voicemail message advising that she "needed to talk to him about the files that had been inappropriately accessed in the Ashcraft folder." Anderson returned the call later that day. According to Morgan's handwritten notes of the conversation, when asked if the file had anything to do with Anderson's normal business and transactions, Anderson responded "no." When asked why he accessed the file, he responded "just tried to see if I could access-did & then close (sic) right away." Anderson told Morgan that he did not talk to anyone about the information contained in the salary file. Morgan's notes were transcribed later producing a version of the conversation which included the following:

Q: Does the information that you accessed have anything to do with your normal course of business or anything that you would have needed to access in a project you were working on?

A: No, there are other files that are used for what I do, but none of these. (The files in the Ashcraft folder).

Q: Why did you access this file?

A: Just tried to see if I could access it. I did and then closed it right away.

Q: Did you copy/forward/print this information or talk to anyone about what you accessed?

A: No, I didn't talk to anyone about it.

Anderson later told Morgan that he would have answered differently if he had known that he was going to be terminated for accessing the document.

Ashcraft and Morgan concluded that Anderson had violated company policies by accessing Ashcraft's file. U.S. Bancorp's Computer and Information Security Policy provides: "all of your computer access is on a need-to-know basis and is limited to the information required to perform your job." U.S. Bancorp's confidentiality policy provides: "The use of any information stemming from your employment shall be restricted to that which is absolutely necessary for the legitimate and proper business purposes of U.S. Bancorp." On April 3, 2002, Anderson was tendered a notice of termination by Morgan, which stated as the basis of the termination: "You have engaged in unethical conduct by violating U.S. Bancorp Code of Conduct."

On June 21, 2002, Anderson submitted, through counsel, a letter making a claim for severance benefits alleging that he was wrongfully terminated based on an inadequate investigation by Morgan. Anderson denied accessing any file containing confidential and proprietary information or that his actions constituted "cause" as defined in the Plan. He stated that "he had conversations with employees regarding only well known integration issues." Anderson admitted that he had accessed the salary file in the Ashcraft folder, but stated that the file was "indirectly related to one of his job responsibilities."

The Severance Administration Committee consisted of DeeAnn Neri, a senior vice president in the Human Resources Department, Edward Caillier, a human resources employee; and, Diane Thoromsgaard, a senior manager in the trust division. Thoromsgaard was not present at the meeting during which Anderson's initial claim was denied.

The Committee considered Anderson's attorney's letter of June 21, 2002, as a claim for benefits under the Plan, and denied Anderson's claim on August 26, 2002, by letter. The Committee concluded that the termination was for cause within the meaning of the Plan because: (1) Anderson's access to the salary file in the Ashcraft folder was without authorization or a business purpose and Anderson had admitted the same; (2) Anderson disclosed employee information obtained from the accessed file to others in violation of the U.S. Bancorp confidentiality policy; (3) Anderson was not truthful in his statements to Morgan that he did not disclose accessed information to others; and (4) Anderson's conduct violated policies requiring integrity and proper use of company resources.

Anderson appealed the Committee's decision by letter from his attorney to the Committee dated October 11, 2002. In this appeal letter Anderson admitted accessing the salary file but stated that he had a business purpose for doing so and denied that the salary file contained individual salary figures. He stated that he made a mistake in initially stating to Morgan that he did not need access to the salary file to perform his job duties. Anderson also denied disclosing the acquired information to anyone else.

In this letter, Anderson requested that the Committee provide him with documents including his entire personnel file, documents as to other similarly situated employees who had been terminated or denied severance benefits during the preceding five years, a copy of the salary file accessed by Anderson, and documents showing the salary file to be classified. Anderson also requested permission to speak to specified U.S. Bank employees.

Anderson supplemented his appeal by way of an additional letter on February 4, 2003, after U.S. Bancorp provided Anderson the opportunity to interview employees. In this letter, Anderson submitted to the Committee certain factual...