Dell, Inc. v. Wise
| Decision Date | 22 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–11–00106–CV.,11–11–00106–CV. |
| Citation | 424 S.W.3d 100 |
| Parties | DELL, INC., Appellant v. William WISE, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher H. Hahn, Jason S. Boulette, Austin, Craig A. Stanfield, Houston, Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, Michael D. Marin, Austin, for Appellant.
Paul Matula, Austin, Amanda G. Taylor, Austin, for Appellee.
Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., McCALL, J., and WILLSON, J.
Because William Wise, Jr. believed that his age was a motivating factor when Dell, Inc. fired him, he sued Dell for wrongful termination. After a jury trial, the trial court entered a judgment upon the jury's verdict. The trial court in its judgment specified damages against Dell in the amount of $668,019, plus trial court attorneys' fees of $221,000 and appellate attorneys' fees up to a maximum of $25,000.
On appeal, Dell complains that there is no evidence to support the jury's finding that age was a motivating factor in Wise's termination, that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's findings on economic and compensatory damages, and that the trial court should not have submitted the issue of future or “front” pay to the jury. We affirm.
Dell is an American multinational computer technology corporation. Dell develops, sells, and services personal computer systems (including laptops and desktops, monitors, printers, and other hardware); enterprise systems (including servers, network switches, data storage devices, routers, and bridges); software; peripherals; and other electronics. Wise was an eleven-year employee of Dell. He worked as a technical sales representative on three sales teams that supported three United States Air Force accounts that were part of the federal sales division.
Dell's sales teams are composed of four people performing various functions. An account executive is Dell's face-to-face contact with the customer. The account executive travels, builds sales relationships, and—to use Dell's parlance—is “customer facing.” A systems consultant travels with the account executive and provides technical support and assistance. The inside sales representative is an office employee who has less technical knowledge than a technical sales representative. The technical sales representative also works in the office and has more sophisticated knowledge of Dell's enterprise systems and supports the whole team. Inside sales representatives and technical sales representatives do not meet directly with customers in the field; they rely on the account executive's skills and the skills of the systems consultant as a part of the overall success of the team.
Typically, the effort to sell Dell's products begins when an account executive, a systems consultant, or an inside sales representative sends a customer's quote request to a technical sales representative. After a technical sales representative receives a customer quote request, he determines the products that are needed to meet the request; prepares and generates quotes related to the request; answers technical questions; follows up on quotes; and generally interacts with the account executive, systems consultant, and inside sales representative in an effort to obtain a purchase order from the proposed customer. If the customer accepts the quote, the inside sales representative enters the purchase order, and the order is placed in production. After the process is complete and after the customer has paid for the order, the team members who worked on the sale, including the technical sales representative, receive credit for the sale.
Dell had several sales divisions that operated under that format. Three of those divisions were the educational sales division, the health care sales division, and the federal sales division. Kelly Wilhelm worked for Dell as a regional inside sales manager and, as such, was the leader of each of those three divisions. There were two groups within the federal sales division that Wilhelm supervised. One of those groups consisted of Wise and sixteen other technical sales representatives. Andrew Napora, a technical service representative manager, actually managed that group under Wilhelm's direction. There were four technical sales representatives in the other group in the federal division, and this group reported directly to Wilhelm.
Wilhelm oversaw five Air Force accounts in Dell's federal division. Wise supported three of those five accounts; another technical sales representative, Nick Kelley, supported the other two accounts. Each of the three Air Force sales teams with which Wise worked in the federal sales division consisted of an account executive, a systems consultant, an inside sales representative, and himself.
Dell had adopted a method by which it gauged performance of its sales teams, including technical sales representatives like Wise. Dell's finance department personnel used two-year historical sales data to arrive at a sales quota for various teams. Dell personnel then determined whether a team met that sales quota and by what margin. That review comprised 66% of the total performance review. The remainder of this segment of the evaluation of a technical sales representative involved customer interaction, teamwork, communication, implementation of strategic initiatives, and other skills.
Dell personnel tracked a technical sales representative's performance based 60% on core enterprise product sold, 20% on the profit margin generated, and 20% on the amount of peripherals involved in a particular sale. By the use of those figures, Dell personnel arrived at an average blended quota attainment. Technical sales representatives were rated “exceptional,” “valued,” or “below,” in part, based on the number of quarters that they attained their quotas and exceeded blended attainment goals, as well as other factors. On the other hand, their annual performance reviews focused on the complete picture of quotas, attainments, and other factors.
There are a number of reasons why technical sales representatives might miss their sales quotas. Economic conditions, including military spending cycles, could differ from Dell's projections and negatively affect sales. Reduced end-of-fiscal-year government spending for military appropriations would adversely affect sales in Dell's fourth quarter (November to January) because military budgets would be depleted. Further, having new members on the team can make it “more challenging” for a team to make sales and for technical sales representatives to meet their quotas. Napora testified that the two-year historical data that Dell used to set quotas could be incorrect, that the quotas could be set too high for sales teams to meet those unrealistic quotas, and that that would not be the fault of the sales team or its technical sales representative.
Napora agreed that a “group effort” is required for technical sales representatives to meet their quotas. Napora testified that, when he was employed as a technical sales representative for approximately twenty-nine months, he had not always met his sales quotas. Napora acknowledged that there are factors that are beyond one's control that will affect adversely one's ability to meet quotas and that a failure to meet a quota does not automatically mean that technical sales representatives are not doing their jobs.
Should technical sales representatives need to improve their performance, Dell developed a procedure, operated through its human resources department, to assist them. A technical service representative manager, like Napora, or a regional inside sales manager, like Wilhelm, could, within certain guidelines, initiate a Performance Improvement Plan. The plan was to be considered and used with discretion in cases where the technical sales representative had (1) quarterly blends below 90% for two or more consecutive quarters, (2) overall inconsistent attainment: a history of hit and miss on quotas, (3) consistently missed strategic initiatives, and (4) consistent quality issues (customer complaints). Dell's goal was to improve performance and foster a winning culture that increased sales.
Managers were to follow Dell guidelines and procedures in using Performance Improvement Plans. First, managers were required to consider quota-setting issues, external business conditions, backlog, and other reasons determined by those in sales leadership before requiring that someone participate in a Performance Improvement Plan. Second, Dell required that the department of human resources validate all facts used to support the Performance Improvement Plan and attend the Performance Improvement Plan meeting as a neutral party to answer questions. This validation requirement was designed to confirm “whether or not it would be appropriate to place the employee on a PIP.” Third, Performance Improvement Plans had to be documented and delivered to an employee within one week of the quarterly Performance Improvement Plan meeting. Fourth, managers were to meet weekly with the employee and provide written feedback on the employee's Performance Improvement Plan progress. Fifth, Dell's own policies and procedures required that technical sales representatives operating under a Performance Improvement Plan should be allowed at least one full quarter in which to show improvement. Finally, general managers, sales leaders, and human resources personnel were to review and approve Performance Improvement Plans.
Wise received a quota that was a “roll up” of the enterprise quota assigned to his three teams. In 2007,1 Wise met or exceeded his sales quotas in two quarters, and he had a blended attainment of 136.62%. Wise's performance record included an August 2006 customer e-mail in which the customer praised his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Burnett
...supports a finding of pretext when that evidence contradicts the reason given by the employer of poor performance." Dell, Inc. v. Wise , 424 S.W.3d 100, 112 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2013, no pet.).Burnett also testified that many of his department’s problems in ensuring that it collected parts n......
-
Office of the Attorney Gen. of Tex. v. Rodriguez
...pay" is defined as those lost wages and benefits that accrue from the date of a wrongful termination through trial. See Dell, Inc. v. Wise , 424 S.W.3d 100, 114 (Tex.App.—Eastland 2013, no pet.) (citing United Servs. Auto. Ass'n. v. Brite, 215 S.W.3d 400, 401 (Tex. 2007) ; Stanley Stores, I......
-
Baron Aviation Servs. v. Kitchen
...case has been tried on the merits, Texas courts do not utilize a burden-shifting analysis. Canchola, 121 S.W.3d at 739; Dell, Inc. v. Wise, 424 S.W.3d 100, 109 App.-Eastland 2013, no pet.). "Instead, we inquire whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's ultimate findin......
-
Arlington Prof'l Fire Fighters v. City of Arlington
...can be proven indirectly by the "pretext" method. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-05, 93 S.Ct. [at 1824-26]. Dell, Inc. v. Wise, 424 S.W.3d 100, 109 App.-Eastland 2013, no pet.). As to reductions in certain types of discretionary pay that occurred in the form of the elimination of EM......