In re Hansel
| Decision Date | 22 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | 13-cv-764-jdp |
| Parties | DWIGHT V. HANSEL, Plaintiff, v. PRAIRIE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
This is an age discrimination case. Plaintiff Dwight Hansel was one of eight maintenance technicians at Prairie Industries, Inc., a retail packaging and display company located in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. Prairie Industries's business dropped off precipitously in 2011, and Hansel was among the many workers laid off in two rounds of reductions in force. The layoffs were clearly motivated by the severe loss of business, but Hansel, at 60, was the oldest of the eight maintenance technicians, and the only one of them to be let go. Hansel contends that Prairie Industries used the layoffs as an excuse to keep younger, but less qualified, employees. He brings this case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
Before the court is Prairie Industries's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 10. Hansel has stated a prima facie case of age discrimination, but Prairie Industries has provided a non-discriminatory explanation for why it selected Hansel as the sole technician to be terminated. In response, Hansel has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that the company's explanation was a pretext for age discrimination. The court will grant Prairie Industries's motion for summary judgment.
The court finds that the following facts are material and, except where noted, undisputed.
Prairie Industries specializes in retail packaging, liquid filling, and display building. The company operates two plants in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin: the "North Plant" and the "South Plant." The North Plant houses most of Prairie Industries's blister packaging and clamshell packaging operations.1 Also at the North Plant are the shrink-wrapping, bagging, and die-cutting machinery and operations. The South Plant has Prairie Industries's liquid-filling and display-building operations. Before the layoffs, the South Plant also housed two additional blister packaging machines. In 2011, Prairie Industries's largest customer was 3M. The work was somewhat seasonal, and its peak production season was during the summer.
Prairie Industries hired Hansel as a maintenance technician in June 2006. He was 54 years old at the time. Hansel spent only the first four days of his employment working at the North Plant. Shortly after he started, he helped set up operations at the South Plant and then permanently transferred to that location. His duties included maintaining and repairing the machines at the South Plant, as well as providing general building and HVAC maintenance. Hansel's formal title was simply "maintenance technician," like the others, but he worked as a "lead" during his employment. In this capacity, Hansel was responsible for ordering parts, handling inventory, and testing equipment.
Based on projected orders for its summer 2011 peak season, Prairie Industries hired 80 temporary workers and 20 full-time employees. At the end of the peak season, Prairie Industrieslet all 80 temporary workers go. But business declined more than anticipated and the company terminated 30 full-time employees as well—including some, but apparently not all, of the group of 20 that Prairie Industries hired in the summer of 2011. The full-time employees were laid off effective November 14, 2011, the first reduction in force at issue in this case.
Things got even worse. Demand for Prairie Industries's services continued to drop when 3M took much of its business elsewhere. Prairie Industries projected a $10 million loss in revenues and a 73% reduction in blister packaging because of the decline in business. Prairie Industries decided to consolidate its blister packaging operation and moved the two blister machines at the South Plant to the North Plant. Prairie Industries then determined that it could meet the reduced demand by running five blister machines at the North Plant over one shift instead of the two shifts it had been running. The company also cut expenses by cancelling its Christmas party and reducing holiday bonuses.
Consolidation and expense cutting were not enough, and Prairie Industries decided to lay off more employees. An e-mail from Jeff Panka, the company's president, confirms that Prairie Industries had begun planning a second reduction in force by November 11, 2011. Prairie Industries ultimately laid off another 38 employees, effective January 2012 (the January RIF), 16 of whom voluntarily left when offered severance packages. Hansel was among the workers involuntarily terminated and his employment officially ended on January 12, 2012.
At the time Hansel was terminated, Prairie Industries employed eight maintenance technicians; four at the North Plant and four at the South Plant. The table below lists the maintenance technicians and their ages:
North Plant
South Plant
Tracy Christ
48
Barry Curran2
46
Daniel Paulus
29
Dwight Hansel
60
Dave Polodna
40
Stuart Stickfort
55
Shane Toberman
54
Kipp Toberman3
35
Of the eight technicians, Hansel was the oldest and the third most senior. He was the only maintenance technician laid off as part of Prairie Industries's reduction in force.
Tina Stoeffler, the North Plant manager, and Tom Jazdzewski, the South Plant manager, reviewed all eight maintenance technicians as part of the January RIF. Jazdzewski determined that because the two blister machines at his plant would be moved to the North Plant, he could eliminate one of the maintenance technicians who worked at the South Plant. Eventually, Stoeffler and Jazdzewski narrowed the decision down to Hansel and Toberman because they felt that both technicians performed the same basic duties and that either could adequately serve as a lead technician. The managers ultimately retained Toberman because of his slightly higher performance evaluations, his ability to provide IT support to Prairie Industries, and his experience working at the North Plant.
The parties disagree on whether Toberman was acting as a lead technician as of November 2011, but any dispute on this point is immaterial because Stoeffler and Jazdzewski determined that Hansel and Toberman performed generally overlapping duties ("lead" or otherwise) and further believed that Toberman had the ability to perform all the lead tasks. On these latter two points, there is no genuine dispute. Hansel and Toberman both held the title of"maintenance technician" and performed the same basic duties. In terms of lead tasks, Hansel took responsibility for ordering parts, maintaining an inventory, and implementing various procedures. Jazdzewski testified at his deposition that Toberman would complete these tasks when Hansel was on vacation. Dkt. 19 (Jazdzewski Dep. 31:3-18). Hansel supervised the Humidipak machine, whereas Toberman monitored the Vertical Fill and quart line machines.
Hansel cannot genuinely dispute that Toberman had the ability to perform all the lead tasks, and that some factors favored retaining Toberman over him. At his deposition, Hansel stated that he and Toberman possessed many of the same skills and were capable of performing many of the same tasks, although he speculated that Toberman might require some additional training before being fully capable of taking charge over some machines at the South Plant. Dkt. 17 (Hansel Dep. 19:19-40:8). During the relevant time period, however, Toberman had slightly better performance reviews than Hansel. In 2010, Hansel was "proficient" in each of Prairie Industries's five evaluation categories except for safety, where he was marked as "needs improvement." Overall, he scored 27 out of 30. In 2011, Hansel was "proficient" in each category and scored 30 out of 30. In contrast, Toberman received perfect scores both years with no areas of concern. Stoeffler and Jazdzewski also considered that Toberman had worked at the North Plant for a substantial period of time before joining the South Plant and so he had greater experience with the North Plant's machines and operations.
The managers' final reason for retaining Toberman was their belief that he could provide IT support for Prairie Industries, in addition to completing his duties as a maintenance technician. As Hansel acknowledged in his deposition, Toberman had received formal, college-level training in computer science. Id. at 17:10-14. Stoeffler and Jazdzewski considered this additional qualification to be particularly valuable because it would enable Prairie Industries to reduce some of its outsourced IT costs.
On July 31, 2012, Hansel filed a charge of age discrimination with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Employee Rights Division (ERD), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The ERD investigated the charge and returned a finding of probable cause that discrimination had occurred. In addition to relying on Hansel's age and seniority, the ERD based its probable cause determination on the fact that Dkt. 15-8, at 2. The ERD's factual finding was incorrect, however, because Hansel is not personally ISO certified—Prairie Industries is, as a facility. The ERD scheduled a hearing on Hansel's charge, but he requested a stay of those proceedings and sought a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. When he received the letter, Hansel brought suit in this court.
This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party, here Prairie Industries, "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial