Shell v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-00037-RLV-DCK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | TIMOTHY SHELL, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendant. |
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion"). [Doc. No. 16]. Plaintiff Timothy Shell has opposed the Motion. See [Doc. Nos. 18 & 19]. This matter is now ripe for review and decision. Having carefully studied and considered the parties' briefs, the record as a whole, and relevant governing precedents, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant's Motion.
Plaintiff Timothy Shell (hereinafter, "Plaintiff" or "Shell") began working for Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (hereinafter, "Defendant" or "Tyson") in its Virginia facility in 1995. [Doc. No. 17-1] at p. 3. Afterward, Shell began working as a production supervisor in Tyson's Wilkesboro, North Carolina facility in the late-90s. Id. at p. 4. In March 2011, Shell was promoted to the position of shift production manager - a position he held until his employment with Tyson terminated on June 5, 2013. See id. at pp. 7-8. In his managerial role, Shell was responsible for supervising several subordinate employees. See [Doc. No. 19-21] at p. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Shell was an at-will employee of Tyson. See [Doc. No. 17-1] at p. 3.
While employed by Tyson, Shell was subject to various employment and managerial policies. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 22-24. For instance, Shell was subject to Tyson's Management Standards of Behavior Policy, which provides that "Team Members in management have the responsibility to represent the Company in a positive manner at all times" and that "[a]ll management Team Members are expected to follow all Company policies and procedures to include, but not limited to, Ethics, Code of Conduct, Harassment/Discrimination, and all other HR and Company Policies and Procedures." See [Doc. No. 17-4] at p. 23. Shell agreed to be bound by these policies as a term and condition of his satisfactory employment with Tyson.
Though Shell received two undated and predominantly positive "TEAMS" competency reviews from Tyson manager Andrew Boyles in 2011 and 20121 (see [Doc. No. 19-3]; [Doc. No. 19-4]), as a supervisor and manager, Shell developed a record of allegedly violating Tyson's employment and managerial standards. These alleged violations are documented and included in the evidence before the Court. For example, in June 2010, Shell was disciplined for allegedly assigning, improperly, supervisory responsibilities to a subordinate employee, and for intimidating the employee in violation of company policy.2 See [Doc. No. 17-1] at pp. 33-36, 94; [Doc. No. 19-1]. As part of this disciplinary action, Tyson issued Plaintiff a written warning and advised him that future violations could result in more serious personnel actions, such as termination. See id. In June 2011, Shell was again disciplined following Tyson's investigation into allegations that hehad openly harassed a fellow employee while at work. See [Doc. No. 19-2]. At the investigation's conclusion, Tyson determined that Shell's conduct was in violation of its employment and management policies. See id. Tyson again admonished Shell and warned him that future misconduct could result in his termination. See id. In November 2012, Shell was again disciplined for allegedly threatening to terminate subordinate employees for their use of overtime - an act that Tyson also believed violated its employment and managerial policies. See [Doc. No. 17-1] at pp. 41-48.
In January 2013, Michael Cox became plant manager of the Wilkesboro, North Carolina facility and Shell reported directly to him in that capacity. See [Doc. No. 19-22] at pp. 3-4. Shortly after Cox was hired, he met with Shell and, at some point during their conversation, Cox commented about how Tyson needs to "get[] the old folks out . . . and get[] the young bucks in." See [Doc. No. 17-1] at pp. 48-49. Other Tyson employees heard Cox make similar statements. See [Doc. No. 19-5] at p. 2 (Gary Messer Affidavit) (testifying nonspecifically that, "on numerous occasions," he "heard Mr. Cox say 'this is a young man's game now' and 'it's time for the old to go and the new to come in'"). As plant manager, however, Cox was without singular authority to hire, discipline, or terminate any employee. See [Doc. No. 19-22] at p. 3; [Doc. No. 17-5] at p. 4; [Doc. No. 20-3] at pp. 3-4. Rather, all such employment actions were carried out by Tyson's Human Resources Department. See [Doc. No. 17-5] at pp. 4-5; [Doc. No. 20-3] at pp. 3-4, 5-6. Specifically, once an allegation of misconduct is made against a managerial employee, the appropriate Human Resources Manager will institute an investigation and, at its conclusion, submit any findings to the corporate Director of Human Resources for decision and appropriate action. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 17-2] at p. 10. In Tyson's corporate structure, plant managers (such as Cox)are not in the "chain of command" over human resources officers, and can exercise no supervisory authority over them. See [Doc. No. 20-4] at p. 3.
In April 2013, Tyson was notified through confidential channels that Shell was "bull[ying], harass[ing] and intimidat[ing] employees." See, e.g., [Doc. No. 17-4] at p. 2. In May 2013, Tyson became aware of additional allegations that Shell had shouted inappropriately toward another employee.3 See id. Those complaints led to Shell being temporarily suspended from his position and caused Tyson to conduct an internal investigation into his conduct. See [Doc. No. 17-4] at p. 2; [Doc. No. 17-2] at pp. 4, 7-8. The investigation was headed by the Human Resources Manager of the Wilkesboro facility, Brent West. See [Doc. No. 20-4] at p. 2. As part of his investigation, West interviewed several Tyson employees about Shell and his professional conduct. See [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 2-6; [Doc. No. 20-4] at p. 3. Through these interviews, West learned that Shell had, in other instances, conducted himself in an unprofessional manner toward his colleagues and subordinate employees. To be a bit more precise, West was told that Shell bullied, intimidated and demeaned others; repeatedly cursed in the workplace; undermined the authority of a fellow supervisor by admonishing him in front of his employees; acted in a condescending and belittling manner towards others; and abused the authority Tyson had granted to him. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 2-6; [Doc. No. 20-4] at p. 3; see also [Doc. No. 17-6] at pp. 2-3; [Doc. No. 17-7] at pp. 2-3. West also learned that Shell had publicly made nationality-based comments while on the job. See [Doc. No. 17-4] at p. 5; see also [Doc. No. 17-1] at p. 90 (Shell Deposition) ). West also came to believe that Shell had knowingly violated Tyson's Human Resources policies by issuing disciplinary papers outside of ordinary protocol in order to leverage control over another employee. See [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 5-6; see also [Doc. No. 17-1] at pp. 64-76. In his deposition, Shell admits that the disciplinary papers he drew up against Ernie Holloway, a colleague, violated Tyson's HR policies. See [Doc. No. 17-1] at p. 76. In fact, Shell has admitted that several instances of his alleged misconduct, if true, would violate company policies and procedures. See, e.g., [Doc. No. 17-1] at pp. 16-17, 22, 34, 35-37, 45-47, 54.
Once West completed his investigation, his findings were forwarded to Director of Corporate Human Resources Kurt Schrock, a corporate HR employee based in Tyson's Springdale, Arkansas office. [Doc. No. 17-2] at p. 9. Schrock was not involved in the investigation of Shell's alleged misconduct; instead, he became involved only once the investigation was completed and the facts were gathered for his review and judgment. See [Doc. No. 17-3] at pp. 5-6, 8-9; [Doc. No. 17-2] at p. 9. Schrock decided that, based upon the evidence gathered during West's investigation, Shell should and would be terminated from Tyson employment. See [Doc. No. 17-3] at pp. 5-6, 8-9; [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 6-7. Schrock prepared a termination letter to be delivered to Shell, which stated the basis for his decision. See [Doc. No. 17-3] at pp. 5-6, 8-9; [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 6-7. Specifically, the letter admonished Shell for the inappropriate behavior uncovered during West's investigation, reminded Shell that he was notified on multiple occasions that his behavior would have to change in order to remain a Tyson employee, and informed Shell that his employment was being terminated immediately. [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 6-7, 30-31. Mr. Cox was not involved with West's investigation of Shell, and did not counsel Schrock's decision to terminate him. See [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 6-7; [Doc. No. 20-2] at p. 2; [Doc. No. 20-5] at pp. 4-5; accord [Doc. No. 17-3] at pp. 5-6, 8-9; [Doc. No. 17-4] at pp. 6-7. At the time of his termination, Shell was approximately 49 years old. See [Doc. No. 17-1] at pp. 3, 8, 89. Moreover, Shell had returned from an approved leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (the "FMLA"), approximately one month before his termination. See id. at pp. 29-33.
Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the movant shows 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). In order to support or oppose a summary judgment motion, a party is required to cite to "materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, . . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials;" or show "that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial