Porter v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 January 2003
• Docket Number: No. G-02-070.,G-02-070.
• Citation: 246 F.Supp.2d 615
• Parties: David G. PORTER Plaintiff, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

246 F.Supp.2d 615

David G. PORTER Plaintiff, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION Defendant.

No. G-02-070.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division.

January 22, 2003.

David T Lopez, David Lopez & Associates, Houston, TX, for David G Porter, plaintiff.

William Scott Helfand, Magenheim Bateman et al, Houston, TX, for Exxon Mobil Corporation, defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KENT, District Judge.

Plaintiff David Porter ("Porter") brings this action against Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon") seeking damages for Exxon's allegedly wrongful termination of Porter. Specifically, Porter alleges that his termination was a result of improper age discrimination. Porter was terminated on October 4, 2000. He subsequently filed a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC alleging age discrimination. On December 19, 2001, the EEOC issued a dismissal and right to sue letter because the EEOC concluded that it was unable to substantiate any potential age discrimination. As a result, Porter filed this action on January 29, 2002, seeking reinstatement with credited services, lost pay, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees. Now before the Court is Exxon's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Porter's timely Response. After carefully reviewing Exxon's Motion, Porter's Response thereto, the relevant evidence, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Exxon's Motion for Summary Judgment must be GRANED.

. BACKGROUND

The undisputed facts of this case are as follows. Porter was an Exxon employee from 1968 until 2000, literally starting his career for Exxon at the age of 20. Porter was a Buyer for Exxon and continued in that role after the merger between Exxon and Mobil in November, 1999. The year before his termination, Porter assumed responsibility for the Materials Coordination and Planning function at the Mont Belvieu Plastics Plant ("Plant"). Generally, Porter was responsible for all the major purchases (up to $300,000) that were needed for the Plant. On August 18, 1999, the Plant ordered two Advance Maxum Gas Chromatograph Analyzers from Applied Automation for approximately $100,000, in order to replace certain pieces of outdated equipment at the Plant. The anticipated delivery date was December 23, 1999. In early December, Applied Automation notified the Plant that the analyzers would be completed by the end of 1999 but that the analyzers were unable to be delivered by the end of the year because Applied Automation could not properly test and calibrate the analyzers in time. In response, Gary Gilmore, the Plant's First Line Supervisor, devised a plan of delivering the untested equipment to the Plant before December 31, 1999. Then the Plant, at its own expense, would return the analyzers to the manufacturer in 2000 for proper testing. According to the plan, the analyzers were received at the Plant on December 30, 1999, and then returned to the manufacturer on January 4, 2000.

Exxon budgets its expenditures on a calendar year basis, and as a result, requires that all costs for the year be "booked" before December 31. Gilmore's plan was devised so that the Plant could book the analyzers as expenditures under the 1999 budget, even though Exxon would not receive the equipment until 2000 (otherwise known as an "expense acceleration"). That way, the Plant would not have to cut into its 2000 budget even though the analyzers were technically a 2000 purchase. As a result of this expense acceleration, the Plant overstated 1999 expenses and understated 2000 expenses, contrary to Exxon policies. On January 14, 2000, after the Plant shipped the analyzers back to the manufacturer, an Exxon accounting analyst discovered the irregular transaction. A formal investigation into the transaction was conducted. The investigation centered around four employees-Gary Gilmore (First Line Supervisor), David Porter (Buyer), David McLain (Second Line Supervisor), and Tim Andrews (Project Specialist). Gary Gilmore devised the plan and discussed it amongst the others. Porter, McLain, and Andrews helped procure the analyzers consistent with Gilmore's plan, although McLain's and Andrew's extent of participation and knowledge of the transaction are disputed. Regardless, David Porter candidly admitted to Exxon that the sole purpose of the plan was to book the expenses under the 1999 budget, rather than the 2000 budget. As a result of the investigation, disciplinary actions were recommended against all four employees involved in the plan. Although the official recommendation did not include any terminations, both Gilmore and Porter were terminated on October 4, 2000, while McLain and Andrews received performance rating cuts (which reduces their potential salary) and other sanctions. Porter was 52 years old and Gilmore was 49 years old when they were terminated. McLain was 47 and Andrews was 42 when they were disciplined as a result of the investigation.

Porter alleges that age discrimination, rather than his conduct surrounding the expense acceleration, was Exxon's true motivation in terminating him. Porter presents no direct proof of statements made to him to that effect, and he admits that the stated reason for his termination was his handling of the analyzer purchases. But, Porter does list four specific pieces of evidence that he contends present a genuine issue of material fact that Exxon improperly fired him because of his age. First, Porter was replaced by Dwight Plaisance, age 49, on March 1, 2001. Mr. Plaisance remained at the position through February 1, 2002, until he was transferred. Porter argues that Plaisance was not a bona fide replacement and was specially selected to defeat this lawsuit. To support his argument, Porter points to the fact that Exxon was aware that Porter had obtained counsel when it selected Plaisance, and that Plaisance was an unlikely successor to Porter in Porter's opinion.

Second, Porter contends that McLain and Andrews, ages 47 and 42 respectively, received disciplines short of termination only because of their younger age. Porter argues that both were involved to the same extent as he was, yet they were not terminated for their involvement. Third, Porter argues that his termination coincides with Exxon's announcement that it anticipated reducing ten thousand jobs during the 1998-2002 period as a result of the Exxon Mobil Merger. Lee Raymond, Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil, made the statement at the merger press conference. Porter concedes that Raymond's statement does not suggest age discrimination, nor does the statement infer that any reduction would take into account age. However, Porter argues Exxon personnel chose to terminate him because Exxon was looking to eliminate positions; hence, the expense acceleration investigation essentially gave them an excuse to terminate an older employee. Last, Porter points to two separate occasions of a supervisor asking him when he thought he might retire. The first conversation was with Mr. Greer, approximately three years prior to Porter's termination. The second conversation was with Mr. Scarborough, at some point right before the merger. Porter argues that Mobil had a better severance plan than Exxon, and because of this, that Exxon wanted to terminate the older Exxon employees before they became eligible for the more generous severance plan.

II. ANALYSIS

Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When one party moves for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Issues of material fact are "genuine" only if they require resolution by a trier of fact. See id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law will preclude the entry of summary judgment. See id. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. Nevertheless, if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could find in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment should not be granted. See id.; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Dixon v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 799 F.Supp. 691 (S.D.Tex.1992) (noting that summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence could lead to different factual findings and conclusions). Determining credibility, weighing evidence and drawing reasonable inferences are left to the trier of fact. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513.

Porter has not presented any direct evidence of age discrimination by Exxon. Since Porter relies exclusively on circumstantial evidence, this Court must apply the burden-shifting analytical framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See also Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 896-97 (5th Cir.2002); Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir.1996) (both applying the McDonnell Douglas analysis to claims alleging age discrimination). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the Court employs a three-part test designed to ascertain a defendant's motivation in taking the challenged action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 803-04, 93 S.Ct. at 1824-25; Quintanilla v. K-Bin, Inc., 8 F.Supp.2d 928, 933 (S.D.Tex.1998). First, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by proving the elements of a discrimination claim. See Russell v. McKinney Hospital Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 222 (5th Cir.2000). If the plaintiff proves his ...