Hardy v. The Andersons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | L-21-1218 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 3357 |
| Parties | Kevin Hardy Appellant v. The Andersons, Inc. Appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Marilyn L. Widman, Kera L. Paoff, and Clinton J; Wasserman for appellant.
Renisa A. Dorner, Sarah K. Skow, and Jennifer A. McHugh, for appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal from the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion for summary judgment of appellee The Andersons, Inc. and dismissing the wrongful discharge claims of appellant Kevin Hardy. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.[1]
{¶ 2} Appellant, Keven Hardy (appellant) worked for appellee, The Andersons, Inc. (appellee) for about 34 years prior to his termination in March 2019. Appellee hired appellant as the office manager for its new Webberville, Michigan facility in 1985, when he was 19 years old. Appellant had worked for another company dealing in agricultural goods briefly, and he received an associate degree in agriculture with a specialty in crop and soil science and elevator management from Michigan State University in his early years with appellee. During the years of his employment, appellee promoted appellant to positions of increasing responsibility and pay. In 2016, appellee promoted appellant to senior territory manager, with territory including Michigan north of I-94, the Upper Peninsula, and Canada (primarily Ontario). Appellant sold plant nutrient products to distribution and dealer networks. Additionally, appellant and other territory sales managers sold specialty products until appellee moved those products to a specialty products salesperson.
{¶ 3} Appellee provided appellant with a vehicle, computer, iPad, and cell phone to use in performing his duties, and appellant had discretion regarding his day-to-day activities. As an exempt employee, appellant did not record his daily hours or log his activities, but was merely required to record time off through a human resources program. Appellant's wife was from the Dominican Republic, and he spent time there each year from the time they married in 2007.
{¶ 4} In 2017, two events of significance occurred. Appellant purchased a second home in the Dominican Republic and in June 2017, appellee promoted Andrew Spahr as supervisor for appellant and other territory managers. Spahr was much younger than appellant, and his sales-based training and experience had been earned after he graduated with a bachelor's degree in political science and communications. Spahr began his tenure with appellee as a purchasing agent, and he participated in training and development programs offered by appellee. His promotion in 2017 was the first time Spahr had supervised a significant number of staff.
{¶ 5} Spahr conducted appellant's year-end performance review based on goals established with appellant's previous supervisor, and gave appellant an overall positive performance review. Together, Spahr and appellant identified goals for the next year, with specific targets identified relative to new customers, improved sales, and growth opportunities.
{¶ 6} In late 2017, appellee named Jeff Blair as Spahr's new boss and president for appellant's group. Blair announced fundamental changes to sales strategy, and the company adopted new reporting requirements, which included weekly action reports and use of a new program for collecting data on the market and customers to use in processing current sales and planning future strategy. Appellant did not consistently submit reports, believing he had no requirement of weekly reporting, and he acknowledged a learning curve in adapting to use of the new computer system.
{¶ 7} Spahr held a meeting to discuss new strategies in the fall of 2018. Appellant and other sales managers attended, and after appellant offered his opinion regarding the new strategies, he alleged Spahr referred to him as a "dinosaur." Appellant perceived Spahr's attitude toward him as dismissive, and felt Spahr spent more time with other, younger territory managers. Appellant did not voice his concerns to anyone at the company at the time.
{¶ 8} Around the same time, appellant told Spahr he needed to go the Dominican Republic for a personal emergency, to save his marriage. Appellant stayed in the Dominican Republic from September 8 until October 25, 2018, but did not log vacation during that time. Spahr claimed that, in response to appellant's notice regarding leaving the country, he addressed time off with appellant and discussed vacation policy for time out of the territory and coverage for appellant's territory. Appellant did not recall any discussion regarding covering his customers during his absence from the territory, and also could not recall whether he had notified Spahr of other trips to the Dominican Republic. Instead, appellant admitted that he told others at the company that he vacationed in the Dominican Republic, and when he was out of country, customers would often contact the sales office at Webberville instead of calling him.
{¶ 9} In November 2018, appellant informed appellee's IT department that he needed an international phone plan because he vacationed in the Dominican Republic, without also claiming he worked remotely. Staff with the IT department contacted appellant about his use of his company cell phone to make international calls. Appellant expressed confusion as to why he did not have an international plan, pointing out he vacationed in the Dominican Republic and liked to stay available even on vacation. Appellant's Canadian calls were included in his current phone plan and were not at issue. At appellant's request, and without informing Spahr, appellant was placed on an international plan to permit in-plan phone use from the Dominican Republic. Based on the record, it appeared IT did not require authorization from Spahr or any other supervisor to change appellant's phone plan.
{¶ 10} Appellant resided in the Dominican Republic from December 5, 2018, until January 13, 2019, with a week of that time logged as vacation, coinciding with the date Spahr proposed for a face-to-face meeting to discuss appellant's annual performance review. Appellee was unaware that appellant was out of country, and the parties disagree whether Spahr and appellant met by phone to discuss appellant's performance. In place of the face-to-face meeting, Spahr indicated he communicated with appellant by phone, and Spahr rated appellant's overall performance as "below expectations." Appellant disagreed, claiming he never spoke with Spahr, but responded in writing within the self-assessment part of the review, indicating he met all but one of the targets previously established as his yearly goals. Appellant acknowledged he fell below expectations regarding the goal to reengage with prior customers to reestablish lost market share, but argued he signed new accounts and increased sales.
{¶ 11} Appellant believed he could address any deficiencies in meeting goals with more time. Appellant requested reassignment of his specialty sales, to free up his time, and noted that Spahr had reassigned specialty products for other territory sales managers. Spahr agreed to reassign appellant's specialty sales duties to another salesperson within the company and appeared to agree that more time would lead to better results. In his review of appellant, Spahr indicated he "look[ed] forward to helping [appellant] improve" during the next year, referencing the company's growth strategy.
{¶ 12} Appellant acknowledged the review but appealed his poor rating to human resources, asserting Spahr had arbitrarily "moved the goal posts" in discounting the goals he did achieve and rating him "below expectations" regarding goals he actually met. In support of his poor evaluation, Spahr indicated his own assessment indicated appellant "didn't reach the threshold of exceeding expectations or achieving expectations in territory." Spahr discounted appellant's new accounts as insignificant and discounted appellant's reported increase in sales, attributing the increase to internal sales and not appellant's efforts. Spahr was aware that appellant appealed his poor review, but did not have any recollection of a resolution of that appeal, prior to appellant's termination. It is undisputed that Spahr did not follow the poor review with any remedial measures or disciplinary action.
{¶ 13} After returning to the States on January 13, 2019, appellant traveled to the Dominican Republic again on February 6, 2019. He was in the Dominican Republic in early March when Spahr called to check in. Spahr heard an international ringtone, and while he and appellant dispute the exact wording of their exchange, they agree that appellant told Spahr he was driving down the road and working. Spahr believed appellant indicated he was visiting customers. Appellant contends he would not have told Spahr he was visiting customers, but likely said he was talking to customers because he was driving in the Dominican Republic and not in his territory. However, appellant does not claim that Spahr knew, or should have understood, that he was in the Dominican Republic. Spahr became suspicious and asked the company IT department to trace the whereabouts of appellant's cell phone records and IP addresses, thinking appellant was abusing the vacation policy.
{¶ 14} After Spahr received confirmation that appellant was in the Dominican Republic for an extended period and had not submitted vacation time, he emailed appellant and requested an in-person meeting the next day at the company headquarters in Maumee, Ohio. Appellant responded, by email with a request for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial