Chamblee v. Miss. Farm Bureau Fed'n

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: Tom S. Lee
• Decision Date: 22 March 2013
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV655TSL-JMR
• Citation: Chamblee v. Miss. Farm Bureau Fed'n, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV655TSL-JMR (S.D. Miss. Mar 22, 2013)
• Parties: PAUL CHAMBLEE PLAINTIFF v. MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; RANDY KNIGHT AND DAVID WAIDE DEFENDANTS

PAUL CHAMBLEE PLAINTIFF

v.MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; RANDY KNIGHT AND DAVID WAIDE DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV655TSL-JMR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION

Dated: March 22, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the court on the motion of defendants Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, Randy Knight and David Waide for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Paul Chamblee has responded in opposition to the motion and the court, having considered the memoranda of authorities, together with attachments, submitted by the parties, concludes that defendants' motion is well taken and should be granted.

Plaintiff Paul Chamblee was terminated from his employment with Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau or MFBF) in January 2011. Following his termination, Chamblee filed the present action alleging he was terminated on account of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. (ADEA). He also asserted state law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, defamation, breach of contract, wrongfultermination and civil conspiracy. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of Chamblee's claims.

The following undisputed facts are gleaned from the record evidence. Defendant Farm Bureau is a private organization of farm families which represents the interests of Mississippi farm families. Farm Bureau is organized on a county, state and national level, with the county being the nucleus of the organization. There is a county farm bureau in each of Mississippi's eighty-two counties, which represent a combined nearly 200,000 members. At the state level, Farm Bureau has four officers, a president and three vice-presidents, who are elected every other year. In addition, the organization employs eight regional managers and various staff, all of whom are at-will employees. Plaintiff Paul Chamblee was employed as a regional manager from January 1995 until his January 2011 termination. Chamblee was 55 years old. Another regional manager, Greg Shows, age 40, was terminated at the same time. According to Farm Bureau, age played no role in either termination; rather, both were terminated because of their involvement in Farm Bureau politics. Farm Bureau explains that in early 2010, defendant David Waide, who had served as president of Farm Bureau for the previous fourteen years, announced he would not run for reelection. Randy Knight, then a vice president, immediately announced his intent to run for president. He was opposed by twocandidates, Ken Middleton and Brad Bean. While the candidates campaigned throughout the year, their campaigns switched into high gear in the fall, in advance of the December 2010 election. Ultimately, Knight won the election, and upon assuming office in January 2011, he fired Chamblee and Greg Shows, ostensibly because they had assisted in Ken Middleton's election campaign.

It is undisputed that during Waide's presidency, it was Farm Bureau policy that Farm Bureau employees were prohibited from participating in the politics of elections. This was a particularly important rule for regional managers, who were tasked with educating county farm bureaus within their respective regions and were in the field regularly meeting with county bureau officials and members on the president's behalf. Given their role as the president's "eyes and ears" in the field, it is imperative that the president be able to trust his regional managers. Thus, while all might go well for a regional manager who supported the winning candidate in an election, one who campaigned for a losing candidate (and hence against the winner) was at risk of losing his job if the newly-elected president believed he did not have the regional manager's support during the election. For this reason, all Farm Bureau employees, including Chamblee, were explicitly warned by Waide that they could lose their jobs if they became involved in the campaign for president.

Chamblee admits he knew his job would be in jeopardy if he were to become involved in the political process of the election campaign, and he insists that he stayed out of the campaign. But according to Farm Bureau, there was ample evidence which led Knight to conclude that Chamblee and Shows had supported Middleton in his election campaign. Accordingly, upon taking office as Farm Bureau president, Knight informed both men that because of their involvement in the political process of the election, they could resign or be terminated; both resigned. After filing an EEOC charge alleging he was discharged because of his age and receiving his notice of right to sue, Chamblee brought the present action.

The ADEA makes it "unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire ... any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).¹ To establish an ADEA claim, "[a] plaintiffmust prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged employer decision." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 173-78, 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2351, 174 L. Ed. 2d 119 (2009). Where a plaintiff lacks direct evidence of age discrimination, his claim is analyzed under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). See Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2010) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA claim). Under this framework, "'[a] plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must put forth a prima facie case, at which point the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision.'" Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917, 922 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Berquist v. Washington Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344, 349 (5th Cir. 2007)). "If the employer articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision, the plaintiff must then be afforded an opportunity to rebut the employer's purported explanation, to show that the reason given is merely pretextual." Id. (citing Jackson, 602 F.3d at 378-79). A plaintiff may establish pretext directly,by showing that a discriminatory motive more likely motivated his employer's decision, such as through evidence of disparate treatment, or indirectly, by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. System, 271 F.3d 212, 220 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). It is insufficient under the ADEA to show that discrimination was a motivating factor; the plaintiff instead must show that age was the "but for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. Moss, 610 F.3d at 928 (citing Gross, 557 U.S. at 173-78, 129 S. Ct. at 2351, 174 L. Ed. 2d 119).

To make a prima facie case of age discrimination, Chamblee must establish the following four elements: (1) he was discharged; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was within the protected class at the time of discharge, and (4) he was either (I) replaced by someone outside the protected class, (ii) replaced by someone younger, or (iii) otherwise discharged because of his age. Jackson, 602 F.3d at 379. Farm Bureau does not dispute that Chamblee's proof establishes a prima facie case of age discrimination. Plaintiff was a member of the protected class of employees age 40 or older; he was qualified for his position; he was discharged; and following his termination, his job duties were assigned to an individual or individuals outside the protectedclass.² Moreover, defendants have proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination. The issue, therefore, is whether plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create an issue for trial on his claim that Farm Bureau's asserted reason for his termination is pretext for age discrimination.

Chamblee attempts to establish pretext by showing Farm Bureau's justification for his termination was false or unworthy of credence. "In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2109, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000). In the court's opinion, Chamblee has failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact concerning Farm Bureau's reason for his termination.

Primarily, Chamblee has undertaken to establish falsity of Farm Bureau's proffered reason by proving that he was not, in fact, involved in any manner in the political process of the election. But even if that is true, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that "a fired employee's actual innocence ofhis employer's proffered accusation is irrelevant as long as the employer reasonably believed it and acted on it in good faith." Cervantez v. KMGP Servs. Co. Inc., 349 Fed. Appx. 4, 10, 2009 WL 2957297, 4 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Waggoner v. City of Garland, 987 F.2d 1160, 1165 (5th Cir. 1993)); see also Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir.1995) ("The question is not whether an employer made an erroneous decision; it is whether the decision was made with discriminatory motive."). Thus, Chamblee's "assertion of innocence alone does not create a factual issue as to the falsity of [the employer's] proffered reason for terminating him." Jackson, 602 F.3d at 379. The issue is whether Farm Bureau reasonably believed Chamblee was involved in the campaign and acted based on that belief; and in the court's opinion, on this issue, Chamblee has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact warranting...