Jorgensen v. Modern Woodmen of America, s. 84-1818

Decision Date09 May 1985
Docket NumberNos. 84-1818,84-1843,s. 84-1818
Parties37 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1313, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,226 Ken JORGENSEN, Appellant, v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA, Appellee. Ken JORGENSEN, Appellee, v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Mark L. Laughlin, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

C.L. Robinson, Omaha, Neb., for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, and FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Modern Woodmen of America (Modern Woodmen or Company) appeals from the district court's determination that it discriminated against a former employee, Ken Jorgensen, on the basis of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et seq. We reverse.

Modern Woodmen sells insurance throughout the United States and has divided the nation into a number of separate geographic sales territories. Each territory is assigned to an "agency manager" who is responsible for recruiting and training insurance agents throughout that territory. Between 1964 and 1980, Ken Jorgensen served as an agency manager for a territory that encompassed parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa.

For a number of years prior to this action, Modern Woodmen had regularly undertaken to reduce the size of its larger territories. These reductions were undertaken for two basic reasons relevant to this action. First, by reducing the size of the territory, travel and other business-related expenses of the territory's agency manager were substantially reduced. Second, and more important, the Company found that with smaller territories each agency manager was better able to concentrate his or her full effort on the recruitment and training of insurance agents. Over the long term, it was anticipated that this practice would result both in more economically efficient insurance territories and eventually in greater overall earnings for the Company.

In approximately 1976, Modern Woodmen began to discuss the possibility of splitting Jorgensen's territory. Jorgensen was made fully aware of the Company's intentions and, in fact, participated actively in all stages of the plan's development. After determining that Jorgensen's territory would be split, it was decided that the actual split would not occur until November of 1980 when Jorgensen was scheduled to retire. However, in anticipation of this eventual split, Vern Smith, an agency manager in Illinois, was relocated to South Dakota where he was to serve as a supervisor under Jorgensen until the split actually occurred. These arrangements were agreeable to Jorgensen and were undertaken with his blessing.

In 1979, long after the plan to split Jorgensen's territory had been agreed upon and partially undertaken, Jorgensen informed the Company that he would not retire in 1980 at the age of sixty-five, but rather would continue working until the age of seventy. This change was precipitated by an amendment to the ADEA that enlarged the federally protected age group from sixty-five to seventy. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 631(a). After Modern Woodmen was notified of Jorgensen's intent, it acknowledged his right to continue working and apparently encouraged him to continue working since he had been a valued and productive employee for many years.

After Jorgensen's announcement, Modern Woodmen concluded that there was no longer any reason to delay the final split of Jorgensen's territory. Further, by the time Jorgensen made his plans known, the working relationship between himself and Vern Smith had deteriorated seriously and was adversely affecting the productivity of the territory in which they were working. Consequently, in January of 1980, Modern Woodmen went ahead with its planned split and assigned the agreed upon portion of Jorgensen's territory to Vern Smith. Jorgensen then became agency manager over the remaining portion of his former territory.

Following this split, Jorgensen's work began to deteriorate seriously. By 1982, he had virtually stopped working and was making little or no effort to recruit and train insurance agents. In fact, the record indicates that by this time, Jorgensen was working only one hour per day. In February of 1982, Modern Woodmen was left with no choice but to terminate Jorgensen.

Subsequently, Jorgensen filed this age discrimination action in the district court. Jorgensen did not challenge the final termination of 1982. Instead, Jorgensen argued that the reduction of his territory was done with the intent of forcing him to retire and as such violated the ADEA. The district court accepted Jorgensen's position and found both that the Company's asserted reasons for the split were pretextual and that Jorgensen's age had been a determining factor in its decision to split his territory. We disagree.

To recover for age discrimination, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination. Once such a showing has been made, the burden of production shifts to the employer to produce evidence showing that the actions were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons....

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Holmes v. Marriott Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 31 Agosto 1993
    ...may be objectively or subjectively based." Neufeld v. Searle Lab., 884 F.2d 335, 340 (8th Cir.1989). See also Jorgensen v. Modern Woodmen of Am., 761 F.2d 502, 505 (8th Cir.1985) (observing that "the ADEA is not intended to be used as a means of reviewing the propriety of a business decisio......
  • Gaworski v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 2 Marzo 1994
    ...83. "[T]he ADEA is not intended to be used as a means of reviewing the propriety of a business decision...." Jorgensen v. Modern Woodmen of Am., 761 F.2d 502, 505 (8th Cir.1985). The materially conflicting evidence in this case, however, raises a question of fact as to the believability, no......
  • Hill v. St. Louis University
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 19 Abril 1996
    ...F.3d 507, 512 (8th Cir.1995); Bradford v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 54 F.3d 1412, 1421 (8th Cir.1995) citing Jorgensen v. Modern Woodmen of America, 761 F.2d 502, 505 (8th Cir.1985) ("The ADEA is not intended to be used as a means of reviewing the propriety of a business decision ..."); Lidge......
  • Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Marzo 2013
    ...cases, we recognized that an employer may exercise business judgment in making personnel decisions. (See also Jorgensen v. Modern Woodmen of Am. (8th Cir.1985) 761 F.2d 502, 505 [observing that ‘the ADEA is not intended to be used as a means of reviewing the propriety of a business decision......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT