Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–5784.,13–5784.
• Citation: 749 F.3d 530
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
• Parties: James C. PIERSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. QUAD/GRAPHICS PRINTING CORP. et al., Defendants, QG, LLC, Defendant–Appellee.

749 F.3d 530

James C. PIERSON, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.QUAD/GRAPHICS PRINTING CORP. et al., Defendants,QG, LLC, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 13–5784.

United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.

Argued: March 13, 2014.

Decided and Filed: April 18, 2014.

ARGUED:Douglas B. Janney III, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Laura A. Lindner, Littler Mendelson P.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Douglas B. Janney III, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Laura A. Lindner, Littler Mendelson P.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for Appellee.

Before MERRITT, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.

James Pierson, a Plant Facilities Manager at the Dickson, Tennessee plant of QG, LLC (“QG”), was terminated after the CEO announced a comprehensive company-widecost-cutting initiative. After he was fired, his job duties were assumed by a substantially younger employee engaged in energy-procurement and capital-projects management functions who had been based at another facility. Pierson argues that QG discriminated against him on the basis of age when it replaced him with a younger individual who was less qualified to perform his job functions. QG, on the other hand, asserts that Pierson's position was eliminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force. Because we find evidence in the record to establish a genuine factual dispute regarding whether Pierson's position was eliminated or whether he was replaced by a younger individual, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of QG and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

QG is a printing company with approximately fifty printing facilities and 23,000 to 24,000 full-time employees world-wide. R. 51–4 (Muehlbach Dep. at 99–101) (Page ID # 1037–39). In 2010, QG acquired World Color, another printing company, which had previously done business under the name Quebecor World. As part of this acquisition, QG assumed control over a printing facility in Dickson, Tennessee. James Pierson was the Plant Facilities Manager at the Dickson plant, and QG retained him in that role after the acquisition. Pierson had thirty-nine years of experience in the printing industry, including extensive experience with the “gravure” printing process used at Dickson. Over the nearly seven years that Pierson worked at the Dickson plant, first for World Color and then for QG, he never received a negative performance evaluation. Nor was he ever disciplined, reprimanded, or warned about performance deficiencies. Pierson's direct supervisor was Carl Lentz, QG's Southeast Regional Facilities Manager. Lentz reported directly to Joe Muehlbach, the Executive Director of Facilities and Environmental Affairs.

On August 11, 2011, Joel Quadracci, QG's President and CEO, notified all employees that the company was “shifting to ‘Fortress Quad’ mode.” R. 51–3 (Quadracci Email at 2) (Page ID # 917). Although Quadracci assured employees “that Quad/Graphics remains financially strong,” he described Fortress Quad as “a call for all hands on deck to batten down the hatches and stay focused on the key drivers of our business success.” Id. at 1–2 (Page ID # 916–17). In the email, he instructed all employees to “[l]ook for excess cost or waste in your job and in your department as a whole.” Id. at 2 (Page ID # 917). On August 18, 2011, Quadracci, in private communications, also instructed Muehlbach and other executives to “review every position within the company [and] make a determination on whether those positions were truly needed.” R. 51–4 (Muehlbach Dep. at 28–29) (Page ID # 966–67). Muehlbach initially identified Pierson and David Hakenewerth, the Plant Facilities Manager at the Jonesboro, Arkansas plant, as potential targets for termination. He reasoned that both men were managers at plants that would be “going through significant downsizing or potential closure [and g]iven the size of the facility, it was felt that their responsibilities could be assumed by others without adding labor.” Id. at 63 (Page ID # 1001). QG was considering reducing operations at the Dickson plant, even though the facility provided some services that were not available at other plants and could not be shut down entirely. Id. at 70 (Page ID # 1008). At the time, only Muehlbach and other senior-level executives knew that the Dickson plant might be downsized; neither Lentz nor any human resources employees were aware that QG was considering a reduction plan. Muehlbach maintains that Pierson's “performance had no bearing on” Muehlbach's decision to discharge him. Id. at 157 (Page ID # 1095).

To assist him in selecting positions that could be reduced or eliminated, Muehlbach turned to Lentz and the other Regional Facilities Managers. At a meeting on August 19, 2011, Muehlbach instructed his regional managers to identify positions under their supervision that could be eliminated without hardship to the company. Lentz immediately identified Pierson and Hakenewerth as employees whose positions could be reduced. With regard to the Dickson plant, Lentz felt that facilities management functions could be assumed by David DePriest, an Energy Manager working out of office space in Franklin, Tennessee. After the meeting, Lentz relayed his decision to Christi Dees, the Corporate Human Resources Manager. Dees, in turn, informed Muehlbach that Lentz had selected Pierson and Hakenewerth for discharge. Muehlbach approved the termination decision, and Dees advised Lentz that he could proceed with Pierson's termination the following week. R. 51–1 (Muehlbach/Dees Email) (Page ID # 415).

On August 22, 2011, Lentz informed Sandra Snyder, the Human Resources Manager for the Dickson plant, that he would be visiting the plant the following day to discharge Pierson. He explained that his decision rested in part on Pierson's failure to be a “team player.” R. 51–1 (Lentz Dep. at 32–33) (Page ID # 299–300). In her notes of the conversation, Snyder recorded the phrases “Team Player,” “[r]eplacement,” and “[r]emoved from,” but she did not indicate any logical relationship between the phrases. R. 51–1 (Snyder Notes) (Page ID # 390). Lentz also told Dees and Jerry Ulickey, the Dickson Plant Director, that Pierson was being terminated because of interpersonal problems. Lentz had formed an unfavorable impression of Pierson's ability to work in a team because Bill Gray, a primary customer of Pierson's services, reported concerns relating to Pierson's responsiveness and communication skills. R. 51–1 (Lentz Dep. at 33) (Page ID # 300).

On August 23, 2011, Pierson was terminated. He was sixty-two years old. Lentz read from a “script” provided by human resources that explained that Pierson was being terminated as part of a reduction in force. Id. at 78–80 (Page ID # 345–47). Lentz did not mention that the termination was a result of poor teamwork or any other performance issue. Lentz then gave Pierson a letter concerning his eligibility for release benefits, which compared his position to that of David DePriest and explained that the discharge was “based on job function, business need, performance and skill set.” R. 51–4 (Release Agreement Ltr.) (Page ID # 1398). In preparation for the termination meeting, Lentz prepared “Criteria for Selection” forms for Pierson and DePriest that purported to compare them for elimination. R. 51–1 (Lentz Dep. at 88–89) (Page ID # 355–56); id. (Criteria for Selection Forms) (Page ID # 417–20). The forms were actually intended for situations when several people holding identical positions were to be compared for reduction. However, after Pierson's and Hakenewerth's ¹ terminations were approved, human resources instructed Lentz to complete the forms for both Pierson and Hakenewerth, and he did so. R. 51–4 (Muehlbach Dep. at 196) (Page ID # 1134). Pierson received a lowerscore than DePriest, in part because Lentz gave Pierson the lowest possible score for “teamwork.” R. 51–1 (Criteria for Selection Forms) (Page ID # 417–20). Muehlbach maintains that the decision was based entirely on a need to reduce employee headcount, particularly at Dickson, and that Pierson's performance was not a factor he considered. R. 51–4 (Muehlbach Dep. at 63, 209) (Page ID # 1001, 1147).

After Pierson's termination, DePriest assumed Pierson's duties at the Dickson plant, including managing the infrastructure and preparing environmental reports. He was forty-seven years old. On August 24, 2011, Ulickey posted an announcement at the Dickson plant, which stated that “David Depriest [sic] has joined the Dickson Facility in the roll [sic] of Plant Facilities Manager.... In his role, David will have responsibilities for the Dickson Facilities area in addition to regional responsibilities that include helping Nashville and Franklin with facilities and energy related projects.” R. 51–4 (Ulickey Announcement) (Page ID # 1400). DePriest began spending the majority of his time—between three and five days per week—at the Dickson plant. After the Franklin corporate offices closed in late 2011, DePriest transferred his office space to the Dickson plant and used that facility as his base.

DePriest, Muehlbach, and Lentz all maintain that, although DePriest's physical work location changed after he assumed Pierson's duties, he continued to perform his energy procurement and other duties in addition to the Facilities Manager duties. DePriest recognized that his “duties changed” and that he was “not as focused on the energy procurement” tasks. R. 51–2 (DePriest Dep. at 35) (Page ID # 465). Tim Heggie, a manager at Dickson, also informed Pierson that DePriest was spending most of his time at the Dickson plant performing Pierson's job functions. R. 51–3 (Pierson Dep. at 132–36) (Page ID # 786–90). However, Robert Douglas, DePriest's direct supervisor, noted in DePriest's performance evaluation that DePriest continued to operate as an integral member of the energy management team....