Feeback v. Swift Pork Co.
| Docket Number | 20-1467 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Citation | 988 N.W.2d 340 |
| Parties | David Alan FEEBACK, Appellant, v. SWIFT PORK COMPANY, Troy Mulgrew, and Todd Carl, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Bruce H. Stoltze, Jr. (argued) of Stoltze & Stoltze, PLC, Des Moines, for appellant.
Ruth A. Horvatich (argued) and Aaron A. Clark of McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO, Omaha, Nebraska, for appellee.
Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. May, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The plaintiff, age sixty, texted his plant manager "FUCK You!" and "Believe who and what you want" shortly after that manager harshly criticized his job performance. The plaintiff was promptly fired, and he sued for wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and age discrimination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that this at-will employee was lawfully fired for insubordination. The plaintiff resisted, arguing that he meant to text someone else, the defendants retaliated against him for making safety complaints, profanity was widespread at this workplace, and the employer had a practice of discriminating against older employees. The district court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims, and we transferred the plaintiff's appeal to the court of appeals, which affirmed two counts but reinstated the age discrimination claim, determining questions of fact precluded summary judgment. We granted the defendants’ application for further review.
On our review, we determine that the district court properly granted summary judgment on all claims. We modify the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for summary judgment on discrimination claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) to align with the causation standard at trial.1 We adopt and apply the good-faith "honest belief rule"2 to affirm the employer's decision to terminate the plaintiff for insubordination. The employer's investigation was adequate. While there is a culture of profanity at the meatpacking plant, no other employee texted or said "FUCK You!" to the plant manager right after his negative performance review. While the plaintiff named other older employees who had been terminated over several decades, he had no direct evidence or any expert statistical analysis to show a company practice of discriminating against older workers. We hold this plaintiff lacked proof sufficient to raise a jury question on age discrimination.
We review the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. David Alan Feeback worked for Swift Pork Company (Swift) for nearly thirty years, beginning in 1988 as a production worker at its Marshalltown pork processing plant. He rose through the ranks and ultimately was promoted to a middle management position there as cut floor supervisor. He held that position in 2015 at age sixty. Feeback was an at-will employee with no employment contract. He received mostly positive employment reviews through 2014. He received a raise and bonus in 2015.
In May 2015, Feeback complained to his direct supervisor, Todd Carl, about unsafe working conditions on the cut floor. Feeback reported the trolleys that transported hog carcasses from coolers to the cut floor were old and worn out, and their poor condition allowed carcasses to slide off. Feeback warned that workers could be injured by a falling carcass. Carl responded by emphasizing high replacement costs and abruptly ended their conversation. When Feeback raised the issue again in a phone call a few weeks later, Carl hung up mid-conversation. Although Feeback did not raise that safety issue again, their conflict broadened to other issues. Carl accused Feeback of being "asleep at the wheel" and letting his department run "out of control." Troy Mulgrew, Swift's general manager, also displayed hostility. Mulgrew once interrupted Feeback's bathroom break, accusing him of "fucking around" in there. In early December, Mulgrew reprimanded Feeback for missing a safety meeting; Carl said nothing in Feeback's defense even though Carl had approved Feeback's absence.
Their conflict came to a head on December 31. Feeback scheduled a safety meeting for that afternoon because his department had not completed its required annual safety training. Swift usually let employees go home early on New Year's Eve. Mulgrew pulled rank, called off the safety meeting, sent the employees home for the holiday, and summoned Feeback and Carl to his office. Mulgrew criticized Feeback at length. Mulgrew emphasized that Feeback's department had the highest absenteeism rate; Feeback replied that his department also had the lowest turnover rate. Mulgrew told Feeback that he should be listening with his "mouth shut and his arms open." Mulgrew said another employee quoted Feeback as saying Mulgrew was the worst manager Feeback ever had. Feeback said nothing more, and the meeting ended.
Later that evening, at 5:42 p.m., Feeback sent two text messages to Mulgrew. The first said, "FUCK You!" The second said, "Believe who and what you want." Feeback did not follow up with any text or other communication apologizing or claiming he sent Mulgrew those texts by mistake. Before that New Year's Eve, the last time Feeback had texted Mulgrew was September 15.
That same evening, Mulgrew sent a screenshot of Feeback's messages to Pete Charboneau, Swift's HR Director, and to Carl. Charboneau interviewed Feeback the next morning. Feeback admitted that he sent the texts to Mulgrew but contended "it was by mistake" and that he meant to send those texts to a friend instead. Charboneau asked Feeback why, if that was the case, he did not rescind the messages or contact Mulgrew to explain and apologize. Feeback replied that he did not know how to rescind a text and hadn't seen Mulgrew yet that morning to explain. Charboneau suspended Feeback on the spot and continued his investigation.
On January 4, 2016, Swift terminated Feeback's employment. According to Charboneau, Feeback was fired because of the offensive text he sent Mulgrew. Meanwhile, Swift had already begun replacing the old trolleys, addressing the safety issue that Feeback raised earlier. At this time, Swift's Marshalltown facility employed more than 100 individuals who were age sixty or older. Feeback would have been eligible to retire within two years. Swift filled his position with another longstanding employee, a fifty-year-old man.
Feeback sued Swift, Mulgrew, and Carl (collectively Swift) alleging age discrimination, retaliation, workplace harassment, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. At his deposition, Feeback admitted that he sent the inappropriate text messages to Mulgrew on New Year's Eve but asserted they were meant for a friend. Feeback admitted that he never re-sent the messages to that friend. He never provided any context to explain why he meant to text those words to his friend. He also admitted that he had no personal knowledge that any other Swift employees had been terminated because of their age. He never claimed anyone at Swift mentioned his age in connection with his termination or job performance.
Feeback subsequently withdrew his retaliation claim. Swift moved for summary judgment on his three remaining claims. In resisting the motion, Feeback submitted an affidavit that included a list of Swift employees over the age of fifty-five who had been terminated, demoted, or forced out since 1994 and a list of employees who had used profanity at Swift. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Swift on all claims. The district court determined that his evidence of workplace harassment—negative comments by Carl and Mulgrew—was insufficient to show a hostile work environment. The district court concluded that Feeback's claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy failed because he lacked evidence that his safety complaints were a determinative factor in his discharge. The court noted Feeback's last complaint about the trolley was seven months before his termination and Charboneau was unaware of Feeback's safety complaints.
Addressing the age discrimination claim, the district court noted that "Mr. Feeback has offered no direct evidence of discrimination" and "does not allege that he was ever subjected to any age-related comments." The court observed Feeback relied "on indirect evidence of discriminatory motive." Accordingly, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis on summary judgment. The court assumed based on his age, job qualifications, and termination that Feeback met his initial burden to make "out a prima facie case of age discrimination." Next, the court determined that "Swift articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Mr. Feeback's termination: misconduct for swearing at a supervisor via text message." The district court reviewed the record, including evidence of profanity of other employees and older workers who had been demoted or terminated. The court concluded that Feeback "failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Swift's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination was pretextual and age discrimination was Swift's actual reason for termination."
Feeback appealed, and we transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed summary judgment on his claims for workplace harassment and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The court of appeals reversed summary judgment on the age discrimination claim, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed about "who[m] Feeback meant to text" and that inferences of discrimination arose from the brevity of Swift's investigation, the culture of workplace profanity, and the number of other older workers who had been terminated or demoted. Swift applied for further review; Feeback resisted. We granted further review.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
2023 Iowa Labor & Employment Year End Review
...and the Price Waterhouse motivating-factor standard at trial. On March 31, 2023, the Iowa Supreme Court in Feeback v. Swift Pork Co., 988 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 2023), modified the burden-shifting framework for summary judgment "to align the summary judgment test with the mixed-motive causation s......