Daigle v. Liberty Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-30443,95-30443
• Citation: 70 F.3d 394
• Parties: 5 A.D. Cases 153, 13 A.D.D. 656 Ray DAIGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 394

70 F.3d 394

5 A.D. Cases 153, 13 A.D.D. 656

Ray DAIGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-30443

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1995.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 19, 1996.

Gregory Thomas Juge, Metairie, LA, for Ray Daigle, plaintiff-appellant.

Charles T. Speth, II, Haynsworth, Baldwin, Johnson and Greaves, Columbia, SC, Richard A. Chozen, Raggio, Cappel, Chozen & Berniard, Lake Charles, LA, for Liberty Life Insurance Company, defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before JOHNSON, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

Ray Daigle ("Mr. Daigle") appeals the district court's judgment entered against him in accordance with the jury verdict in his discrimination suit against his former employer, Liberty Life Insurance Company ("Liberty"). Because we believe that the verdict reached by the jury was more than adequately supported by the evidence, we affirm the district court's entry of judgment upon such verdict.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Mr. Daigle filed this suit against Liberty after his termination from Liberty's employment. Among several other grounds which have been abandoned on appeal, Mr. Daigle claimed that Liberty discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Mr. Daigle was working as a District Manager at Magnolia Life Insurance Company ("Magnolia") in October of 1992 when Magnolia was purchased by Liberty. Mr. Daigle retained his position as District Manager of the Houma region in Louisiana after the sale to Liberty. After the company's sale, several new policies were implemented by Liberty with which Mr. Daigle was required to comply. One such policy was the requirement that all Liberty management memorize five recruitment talks to be used in recruiting new agents for employment with Liberty. Mr. Daigle claims that he was unable to memorize these five talks because he suffers from a learning disability. He claims that he was eventually fired from his position with Liberty because of his failure to adequately recite the talks. Mr. Daigle asserts that his termination violates the ADA because Liberty unlawfully discriminated against him because he was suffering from a learning disability.

Liberty, on the other hand, claims that it fired Mr. Daigle for very different reasons. Liberty asserts that Mr. Daigle was mistreating his employees in the Houma District. Liberty claims that Mr. Daigle verbally and physically abused several of his agents and that he was less than honest with employees and Liberty officials. Additionally, Liberty claims that Mr. Daigle successfully completed the memory talks to the company's satisfaction. It is Liberty's position that any learning disability Mr. Daigle may have had in no way affected the decision to terminate him.

During the trial, conflicting evidence was presented as to both of the above-mentioned positions. After reviewing such evidence, the jury found that Mr. Daigle had not proven that he was fired due to a disability and that he had not proven that Liberty's proffered reason for the termination was a pretense for discrimination. Mr. Daigle now appeals the judgment entered by the district court in accord with the jury verdict on the ground that the verdict was clearly erroneous.

II. Discussion

The ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a); see also Daugherty v. City of El Paso, 56 F.3d 695 (5th Cir.1995); Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723 (5th Cir.1995). The term "qualified individual with a disability" means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12111(8).

A plaintiff may establish a claim of disability discrimination by presenting direct evidence of discrimination. Alternatively, the indirect method of proof set for Title VII actions in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), may also be utilized. See Grinstead v. Pool Co., No. 93-2320, 1994 WL 25515 (E.D.La.1994), aff'd without opinion, 26 F.3d 1118 (5th Cir.1994); Aikens v. Banana Republic, Inc., 877 F.Supp. 1031, 1036-37 (S.D.Tex.1995).

Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, a plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) he or she suffers from a disability; (2) he or she is qualified for the job; (3) he or she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) he or she was replaced by a non-disabled person or was treated less favorably than non-disabled employees. See Norris v. Hartmarx Specialty Stores, Inc., 913 F.2d 253, 254 (5th Cir.1990); EEOC v. Brown & Root, Inc., 688 F.2d 338, 340-41 (5th Cir.1982); Aikens, 877 F.Supp. at 1037.

Once the plaintiff has stated a prima facie case, the defendant must "articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason" for its action that adversely affected the employee. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). While an employer need not prove the legitimate reason, it must produce some evidence to support. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2748, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). If the employer produces any evidence "which, taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action," then the employer has satisfied its burden of production. Id.

Once the employer has met its burden, the shifting burden scheme is abandoned and becomes irrelevant. The employer's intent is a question of fact, for which the plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. ¹

Daigle first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for partial summary judgment because Liberty failed to present any evidence to create a disputed fact issue as to the existence of a disability on the part of Daigle. In Black v. J.I. Case Co., this Court made clear that it will not review the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment where on the basis of a subsequent full trial on the merits final judgment is entered adverse to the movant. 22 F.3d 568, 569-70 (5th Cir.1994). As the Black court noted, "[i]t makes no sense whatsoever to reverse a judgment on the verdict where the trial evidence was sufficient merely because at summary judgment it was not." Id. at 572. Once trial begins, summary judgment motions effectively become moot. Id. at 571. Thus, in reviewing the case at bar, this Court will focus on the evidence before the jury at trial on the merits as opposed to the evidence before the judge during pretrial activities.

Whether Mr. Daigle met his burdens within his...