Jones v. B & J Rocket Am., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 December 2015
• Docket Number: Cause No.: 3:14-CV-135
• Citation: 148 F.Supp.3d 755
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
• Parties: Stanley D. Jones, Plaintiff, v. B & J Rocket America, Inc., Defendant.

148 F.Supp.3d 755

Stanley D. Jones, Plaintiff,

v.B & J Rocket America, Inc., Defendant.

Cause No.: 3:14-CV-135

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

Signed December 01, 2015

Barry A. Macey, Quincy E. Sauer, Macey Swanson and Allman, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.

Bradford R. Shively, Jonathan Robert Slabaugh, Sanders Pianowski LLP, Elkhart, IN, Eric M. Wilkins, Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

William C. Lee

, Judge United States District Court Northern District of Indiana

This matter is before the court on the motion for summary judgment (and memorandum in support) filed by the Defendant, B & J Rocket America, Inc. (DE 20 and 20-1). The Plaintiff, Stanley Jones, filed a response in opposition to the motion (DE 23) and B & J filed a reply brief (DE 24). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant based on his demotion. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiff's claims based on his termination.

BACKGROUND

Stanley Jones began working for Middlebury Enterprises, Inc., the predecessor of B & J, in March of 1993 as a saw operator. Jones held various positions with the company, including press operator, press operator supervisor, and machine maintenance. Eventually, Jones was promoted to plant manager. In 2009, B & J purchased Middlebury and retained the latter's employees, including Jones. Jones' supervisors included Andreas Müller, the President of B & J, Bent Toft Andersen, the General Manager of Manufacturing, and his direct supervisor was Todd Hart, General Manager. In 2011, B & J decided to hire a new plant manager. According to B & J, “[t]his decision was ultimately made by Andreas Müller, based on Bent Andersen's recommendation that the Plaintiff lacked the necessary administrative and technical skills and was not satisfactorily fulfilling the job responsibilities for the role of plant manager.” Defendant's Memorandum, p. 4. B & J also claims that “Bent Andersen's recommendation was based on his own observation of the Plaintiff's lack of understanding of finances, lack of managerial skills, and lack of technical skills necessary to assist in solving quality issues.” Id. On March 5, 2012, B & J hired Mark Wallick as its new plant manager. Jones was 63 years old at the time and Wallick was “at least twenty years younger ....” Plaintiff's Response, p. 5. When Wallick was hired, Jones was “demoted to assistant plant manager.” Defendant's Memorandum, p. 5. In October 2012, B & J informed Jones “that, in order for him to continue working for the Defendant, his [salary] would need to be reduced ... [by] approximately $200 per week.” Id. , p. 6. Finally, “[o]n October 19, 2012, Mark Wallick—the Plaintiff's direct supervisor—made the decision that the plaintiff's employment should be terminated as a result of his failure to satisfactorily perform his job responsibilities as assistant plant manager.” Id.¹ Wallick conveyed his concerns to Andersen, who then “sought—and obtained—Andreas Müller's approval for the decision to terminate the Plaintiff .... A few weeks later, Mark Wallick informed the Plaintiff that his employment with the Defendant would be terminated at the end of the year.” Id. , p. 7. Jones was given three months of severance pay and signed a retirement announcement on December 3, 2012. Id. The retirement statement read, in its entirety, as follows:

B & J Rocket America, Inc[.] would like to acknowledge Stan Jones and his 20 years of dedicated service with our company. Stan will be retiring December 31 ^st 2012 as part [sic] of his retirement package he will receive 3 months of severance. Stan's payments will be distributed on the 1^st payroll of each month, January through March 2013.

We, as a company, want to sincerely thank Stan for his loyalty and service through the years. Stan was a great asset and will be truly missed.

DE 20-2, Defendant's Exh. 8, Retirement Announcement. The announcement was signed by Andersen, Wallick and Jones.

In his response in opposition to B & J's motion, Jones presents a contrary version of his employment history with B & J and the events that led to his termination. Jones states that in February 2012 he was told by “an outside electrician who had done electrical work for [B & J] for many years ... that the Company was looking for another Plant Manager.” Plaintiff's Response, p. 4. Jones claims that he heard the same rumor from a maintenance employee at B & J. Id. Jones states that he confronted Andersen and asked if the rumors that B & J intended to hire a new plant manager were true. According to Jones, Andersen responded by saying “Yes, were replacing you because of your age and your health. But don't worry. You'll get to work until you're 66 because it's going to take a long time to train this new guy, whoever we find.” Id. ; (Jones Deposition, DE 23-2, Exh. 1, p. 36).² Jones testified that he responded by saying, “Okay. I'm fine with that.” Id. Jones claims that it was his intention all along to work until age 66, and that he conveyed this intention to Andersen and other “B & J Rocket representatives” when he initially interviewed for continued employment following B & J's purchase of Middlebury. Plaintiff's Response, p. 10. In fact, Jones claims that during that initial interview, “... three representatives from B & J Rocket—Müller, Andersen, and another male—called each employee into the previous owner's office ... and asked the individual if he or she was willing to stay at B & J Rocket America. ... Jones said he was willing to stay and the B & J Rocket representatives said, ‘Well, you're getting up there in age—how long do you want to work before you retire?’ ” It was at that time, says Jones, that he told the men he planned to work until age 66. Jones concedes that “Andersen does not recall this conversation.” Id. , pp. 9-10.

Jones also states that he suffered with medical issues related to his legs throughout the time he was employed at B & J. Jones states that he was injured by shrapnel during the Vietnam War, and “was able to walk short distances, but he bought an electric scooter to travel longer distances .... Todd Hart, the General Manager at the time, approved the use of the electric scooter in the plant.” Id. , p. 2. Jones' problems with his legs, which began in 1999, worsened, and “[in 2010, [he] had a stent

placed in his right leg.... In the fall of 2011, [he] had bypass surgery in his left leg .... After the bypass surgery, [he] was off work for approximately two weeks .... Andersen knew that Jones had problems with his legs, needed the electric scooter, and had to take some time away from work to have these medical procedures performed.” Id. , pp. 3-4.

Jones also states that he “was never told that there were any issues with the performance of his job .... At no point during his employment at B & J Rocket, before or after Wallick was hired, did Jones ever hear any concerns about his performance .... Wallick never wrote Jones up, gave him a performance review, or made any negative comments about Jones' performance.” Id. , p. 7 (citing deposition testimony). Finally, Jones tells of an encounter he had with Müller at B & J's company Christmas party on December 19, 2012. According to Jones, Müller approached him at the party and said, “Congratulations on your retirement. Got any plans?” Jones claims he responded, “[p]lans? What are you talking about? I didn't plan on retiring. Why is this happening?” Müller, according to Jones, responded by saying, “[j]ust business, Stan. Just business.” Id. , p. 8.

Following his retirement, Jones applied for unemployment compensation through the Indiana Department of Workforce Development. DE 20-2, Exh. 11, Adjudication Statements from IDWD. IDWD contacted Wallick to obtain a statement while the agency assessed Jones' application for benefits. In that statement, Wallick told IDWD that Jones kept changing his mind about when he was going to retire, that Jones “pissed the Head boss of the plant off ... and the boss states he could no longer trust [Jones], so [Jones] was told he needed to retire ... it was pretty much a force[d] to retire.” Id. (B & J did not, however, contest Jones' application for unemployment benefits. Id. )

Jones filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on April 3, 2013, alleging that he was terminated because of his age and his disability. After receiving a Notice of Right to Sue letter, Jones filed this lawsuit, alleging in his Complaint that B & J discriminated against him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ,

and the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Complaint, pp. 4-5. Additional facts will be discussed as they become relevant to the court's analysis.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Disputes concerning material facts are genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In deciding whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the court construes all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See

id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, neither the “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties,” id., 477 U.S. at 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, nor the existence of “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), will defeat a motion for...