Jurriaans v. Ala. Coop. Extension Sys.

• Decision Date: 26 June 2019
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 3:17-CV-124-WKW [WO]
• Parties: WANDA JURRIAANS, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM; AUBURN UNIVERSITY; GARY LEMME, STANLEY WINDHAM, CHRIS McCLENDON, KYLE KOSTELECKY, and PAUL BROWN, in their official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

WANDA JURRIAANS, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM; AUBURN UNIVERSITY;GARY LEMME, STANLEY WINDHAM, CHRIS McCLENDON, KYLE KOSTELECKY,and PAUL BROWN, in their official capacities, Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-124-WKW [WO]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

June 26, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Wanda Jurriaans worked for the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES) for fifty-one years. But after a complaint from a local government official, ACES investigated Jurriaans and concluded that she had "seriously strained" relationships with government officials and her colleagues. This came on the heels of a performance evaluation that criticized her for "inconsistent" performance and leadership. ACES fired Jurriaans and replaced her with a man in his fifties. Jurriaans claims she is a victim of age discrimination and retaliation. But no reasonable jury could find that the reasons for firing her are pretextual, so Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 77) is due to be granted.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court views the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).

A party seeking summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for the motion." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This responsibility includes identifying the parts of the record that show there is no genuine dispute of material fact. A movant who does not bear a trial burden of production may also assert, without citing the record, that the nonmoving party "cannot produce admissible evidence to support" a material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). If the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact. A genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence allowing a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).

III. FACTS

Wanda Jurriaans was born in 1942. She worked for ACES from 1965 until she was fired in 2016. Defendants say that Jurriaans lost her job because she strained relationships with government officials, did not get along with her colleagues, and did not consistently meet expectations. Are those the real reasons, or are they pretext for discrimination and retaliation? Answering those questions require understanding how ACES works and what happened during Jurriaans's last year-and-a-half with ACES.

A. The Alabama Cooperative Extension System

ACES is a partnership between Alabama A&M University and Auburn University. It exists to deliver "research-based educational programs that enable people to improve their quality of life and economic well-being." (Doc. # 79-3, at 47-48.) In other words, ACES diffuses into the community what researchers learn at Auburn and Alabama A&M. It works in urban and rural areas, providing "useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture, forestry and natural resources, family and individual well-being, youth development, community and economic development, and other areas." Act of Aug. 2, 2005, No. 304, § 1, 2005 Ala. Laws 607, 609 (codified at Ala. Code § 2-30-2).

Auburn and Alabama A&M jointly administer ACES. Auburn appoints an Extension Director, while Alabama A&M appoints an Extension Administrator. TheExtension Director and Extension Administrator cooperate to ensure ACES's statewide success, but they separately monitor the work done at their respective schools. Each has an Associate Director as his or her second-in-command. (Doc. # 79-3, at 55, 58.) Defendant Gary Lemme has been the Extension Director since 2011. Defendant Paul Brown has been the Associate Director at Auburn since 2009. (Doc. # 79-6, at 4; Doc. # 79-5, at 4.)

Lemme and Brown supervise a team of Assistant Directors.¹ Most Assistant Directors are responsible for programs in certain content areas. For example, there is an Assistant Director for 4-H programs, another for agriculture and forestry programs, and another for family and consumer sciences programs. These program-focused Assistant Directors oversee Regional Extension Agents (REAs). REAs work in designated geographical regions in Alabama, and they work on programs in their content area. (Doc. # 79-3, at 60, 66.) Defendant Kyle Kostelecky was the Assistant Director for Family and Consumer Sciences in 2015 and 2016, though he no longer works for ACES. His office was at Auburn University. (Doc. # 79-8, at 12, 20.)

ACES keeps an office in each of Alabama's sixty-seven counties because it is "committed to maintaining a strong local presence" in each county. (Doc. # 79-3, at51.) Each office is led by a County Extension Coordinator (CEC), who serves as the "principal community liaison." (Doc. # 79-3, at 51.) CECs are thus responsible for arranging and coordinating programs in their counties, building and strengthening relationships with stakeholders, and leading their offices. (Doc. # 79-3, at 51, 67.) CECs must know the needs in their counties and implement programs accordingly. They are the "primary contact" for local government officials, and securing funding from local government is a key part of their job (as is applying for grants from other sources). (Doc. # 79-3, at 51, 104.) CECs work with REAs, but neither works for the other. CECs report to the Assistant Director for County Office Operations — a post held by Defendant Stanley Windham at all times relevant to this lawsuit. (Doc. # 79-3, at 6, 61, 104.) Windham's office is at Auburn University, though the sixty-seven CECs he supervises are scattered across the state. (Doc. # 79-5, at 17, 31.)

B. Wanda Jurriaans's Employment

Jurriaans joined ACES after she graduated from college. From 1965 to 1990, she worked on home economics, nutrition, and 4-H projects. Then in 1990, she became the County Extension Coordinator for Talladega County. (Doc. # 79-4, at 35-38.) At first, Jurriaans was successful as a CEC. But this case is about her more recent performance.

1. Jurriaans's 2014 performance evaluation criticized her leadership and communication skills.

Every year, Windham gives a written performance evaluation to each CEC.In February 2015, Windham gave Jurriaans her review for the 2014 calendar year. He rated her overall performance as a 3 out of 5, meaning her work was "satisfactory and effective in meeting expected levels of performance."² (Doc. # 79-1, at 15.) He included positive comments, opining that she was "quite innovative," was "diligent to seek input," would "foster programming," was "very responsive to clientele needs and requests," and had "a good view and understanding of what would make Talladega County a better place to work and live." (Doc. # 79-1, at 14-15.) He noticed that Jurriaans was a disciplined and detail-focused employee who used her experience to build programs. (Doc. # 79-1, at 7-8.) And Windham said she was "very willing to be a team player and support team projects." (Doc. # 79-1, at 12.)

But Jurriaans's 2014 evaluation was not all roses. Six weeks before he gave Jurriaans her evaluation, Windham learned that an ACES employee had gone to the Clay County CEC "on numerous occasions in tears or nearly in tears, exasperated about the working environment in Talladega County." (Doc. # 79-1, at 17; see Doc. # 87-6, at 6.) And in the evaluation, Windham criticized Jurriaans's leadership and communication style. He told her to soften her tone and to be more supportive of less-experienced employees:

• "Wanda has a wealth of experience and as the front line supervisor for the Talladega County Office — has an opportunity to mentor agents and others to a high level. One item that would help this cause is to be mindful of approach to people — stay positive as much as possible — as she works with all employees." (Doc. # 79-1, at 7.)

• "Wanda is very willing to be a team player and support team projects. This area would be enhanced by reaching out to internal and external entities and making this better known to those serving and supporting her office." (Doc. # 79-1, at 12.)

• "She . . . could soften her verbal and managerial approach particularly with . . . ACES employees. She could attain the same results by utilizing her vast experience and ideas and reaching out to employees with a more supportive approach. In her mind she is meeting needs and she does many times — however approach is everything as we build relationships with those we supervise and work with." (Doc. # 79-1, at 13.)

• "[Effective communication] would be enhanced by being careful to control especially verbal approach to mainly ACES employees. Her intent is good — verbal delivery could be more productive." (Doc. # 79-1, at 14.)

In general, Windham suggested that Jurriaans work on "utilizing her experience to a higher level" and "communicating with and mentoring younger agents in a more nurturing fashion." (Doc. # 79-1, at 15.)

While he gave them less attention, Windham noted two other areas of concern in Jurriaans's 2014 evaluation. One was that funding from Talladega County "could possibly increase." (Doc. # 79-1, at 10.) The other concern was "collegiality issues" in the local 4-H program. (Doc. # 79-1, at 11.) Windham did not pin all the blame on Jurriaans, and he recognized that Jurriaans "worked to resolve" the collegialityissues, but he still mentioned them. (Doc. # 79-1, at 11.)

2. Jurriaans was invited to a...