Keathley v. Ameritech Corp.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-4090,98-4090
• Citation: 187 F.3d 915
• Parties: (8th Cir. 1999) BARBARA DIBARTOLO KEATHLEY, APPELLANT, v. AMERITECH CORPORATION, APPELLEE. Submitted:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 915

187 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 1999)

BARBARA DIBARTOLO KEATHLEY, APPELLANT, v. AMERITECH CORPORATION, APPELLEE.

No. 98-4090

U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Submitted: June 16, 1999

Denied July 29, 1999

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied Sept. 20, 1999.^*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Alan E. Popkin, St. Louis, MO, argued (James F. Monafo, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for Appellant.

Robert J. Tomaso, St. Louis, MO, argued (Cheryl M. Manley and Beverly L. Propst, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for Appellee.

Before Bowman and Heaney, Circuit Judges, and LONGSTAFF, District Judge. ¹

Heaney, Circuit Judge.

Barbara Dibartolo Keathley appeals from a final judgment entered in United States district court granting summary judgment in favor of Ameritech Corporation and thereby dismissing her claim that she was fired in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (1998), and for recovery of unpaid commissions on state law theories of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Keathley also appeals from an earlier adverse grant of a motion to dismiss her common-law cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court ruled that Keathley did not state a submissible case of age discrimination because she did not establish that age was a determinative factor in Ameritech's decision to fire her. The district court additionally ruled that Keathley did not establish any contractual obligation on the part of Ameritech. Reading the record in the light most favorable to Keathley persuades us that there exist genuine issues of material fact both as to the motivation underlying Keathley's termination and as to Ameritech's remaining contractual obligations to Keathley. We therefore reverse with respect to Keathley's ADEA and contract claims.

I. BACKGROUND

At the time she was dismissed, Keathley was a 45-year-old manager, corporate accounts (MCA) for Ameritech Corporation. During her eight-plus year tenure with the company, Keathley held several sales positions and consistently received positive evaluations and promotions. Ameritech Judged the performance of its MCAs almost exclusively by their ability to attain established sales quotas. By that calculus, Keathley was a superior employee. She consistently beat sales expectations by wide margins and was instrumental in landing and retaining large corporate accounts. Keathley regularly received honors and awards based on her sales performance and positive feedback from her clients.

In September 1994 Ameritech placed Bill Gibson in the position of general manager in St. Louis in order to direct a reorganization of that market. Shortly after the reorganization was instituted, Keathley began, for the first time in her career, to receive negative written memoranda. Over the weeks leading up to her termination on December 16, Keathley received a total of six negative memoranda documenting twenty different infractions. On appeal, Keathley contends that the documented infractions were de minimis in the context of Ameritech's established evaluation policies and were pretext for age discrimination. Additionally, Keathley contends that Ameritech failed to pay her for certain commissions and other monies earned prior to her termination and engaged in conduct leading up to her termination that supports a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. By its order of April 19, 1998, the district court, inter alia, dismissed the latter allegation for failure to state a claim. On October 30, 1998, the district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the ADEA and contract claims.

II. DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is appropriate where, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Maitland v. University of Minn., 155 F.3d 1013, 1015-16 (8th Cir. 1998). This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. See Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 118 F.3d 570, 573 (8th Cir. 1997). "This court has repeatedly cautioned that summary judgment should seldom be granted in the context of employment actions, as such actions are inherently fact based." Hindman v. Transkrit Corp., 145 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing cases). "'[S]ummary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference' of discrimination." Breeding v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 164 F.3d 1151, 1156 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting Lynn v. Deaconess Med. Ctr., 160 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1998)).

The ADEA makes it unlawful "for an employer... to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Protection under the ADEA extends to persons age forty and older. See 29 U.S.C. § 631. As Keathley's claims are largely based on circumstantial evidence, the familiar burden-shifting scheme of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800-04 (1973), applies. See Tuttle v. Missouri Dept. of Agric., 172 F.3d 1025, 1029 (8th Cir. 1999); Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328, 1332 n. 5 (8th Cir. 1996) (explaining that although McDonnell Douglas was developed as a Title VII framework, we have likewise applied it to ADEA claims). The McDonnell Douglas analysis proceeds in three stages. Keathley must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, thereby creating a legal presumption of unlawful discrimination. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993). The burden of production then shifts to Ameritech to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. See id. at 506-07. Once Ameritech satisfies its burden of production, Keathley must establish a question of material fact as to whether the employer's proffered reason was pretextual and that she was the victim of intentional discrimination. See id. at 508. Throughout, the burden of persuasion remains with Keathley. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981).

A. Prima Facie Case

In order to establish a prima facie case, Keathley must show that she is a member of the protected age class, was performing adequately in her job, was fired, and subsequently was replaced by a younger person after dismissal. See Rothmeier, 85 F.3d at 1332 n. 7. On appeal, Ameritech contends that Keathley failed to establish a prima facie case both because she was not performing adequately at the time of her dismissal and was not replaced by a substantially younger employee.

The standard to be applied in assessing performance is not that of the ideal employee, but rather what the employer could legitimately expect. See Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 49 F.3d 466, 472 n. 7 (8th Cir. 1995). There is little question but that Keathley's performance was adequate at the time of her termination. When Keathley was fired on December 16, 1994, she had achieved more than 300% of her quarterly revenue quota and had sold more units on an annual basis than any other Ameritech salesperson. During the eight and one-half years prior to her dismissal, Keathley was Salesperson of the Year three times and runner-up on three other occasions. Three days prior to her termination, Keathley had sold approximately 1300 phones in one day, breaking her own one-day record for sales set a year earlier. Additionally, the record contains affidavits from Ameritech customers recounting Keathley's dedication and excellent record of customer service. Ameritech observes that while Keathley indeed achieved success as a salesperson, the record also reflects her failure to meet expectations outlined in the company's "Standards of Quality Performance." (See Appellee's Br. at 27.) Ameritech contends that Keathley was frequently tardy, neglected to return client phone calls, and did not get along well with her co-workers. These criticisms were recorded, however, during the relatively brief period of September through December 1994 and were, according to Keathley, merely pretext for age discrimination.² Moreover, Keathley's sales performance remained excellent throughout this period. Given that Keathley's corporate accounts supervisor identified generation of new sales and retention of existing customers as the two primary responsibilities for account managers, Keathley's performance was at least adequate at the time of her termination.

Ameritech also contends that Keathley was not replaced by a younger employee. It points to Wilson v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 62 F.3d 237, 240-41 (8th Cir. 1995), for the proposition that where an ADEA plaintiff's duties are distributed to a number of employees, some of whom are within the protected class, the prima facie case fails. This reading of Wilson is at best incomplete. In that case, the work of a terminated 52-year-old customer service representative was distributed to eight employees formerly under his supervision, three of whom were aged 50 or over, and others of whom were in their 40s. See id. at 238-40. The court, in concluding that such a circumstance did not satisfy the required showing of replacement by a younger worker, relied on Rinehart v. City of Independence, 35 F.3d 1263, 1266 (8th Cir. 1994). In Rinehart we held it error for a district court to "require [plaintiff] to demonstrate as part of his prima facie case that his replacement came from outside the protected class of workers." Id.; see also Kralman v. Illinois Dep't of Veterans' Affairs, 23 F.3d 150, 155 (...