Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of California
| Decision Date | 27 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-51112.,No. 01-50479.,00-51112.,01-50479. |
| Citation | 304 F.3d 379 |
| Parties | Donald Ray TYLER; Donald R. Powers; M. Leon Earles; Thomas L. Hough; David Burkett, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Jessie G. Price, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, doing business as Unocal, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee-Appellee. Donald Ray Tyler; Donald R. Powers; Jessie G. Price; M. Leon Earles; Thomas L. Hough; David L. Burkett, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Union Oil Company of California, doing business as Unocal, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles Louis Tighe (argued), Susan Rafferty Richardson, Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, Midland, TX, for Donald Ray Tyler, Donald R. Powers, M. Leon Earles, Thomas L. Hough and David Burkett.
Vianei Lopez Robinson (argued), Carolyn Foster, Robinson Law Firm, Abilene, TX, John Allen (Jad) Davis, Jr., Turner, Davis & Gerald, Midland, TX, Veronica H. Roa, Union Oil Co. of California, Law Dept., Sugar Land, TX, for Union Oil Co. of California.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
These appeals and cross-appeals bring before us a variety of issues in this suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.
The plaintiffs, former employees of Union Oil Company of California (Unocal), filed this suit against Unocal on March 19, 1998, alleging violations of the ADEA and the FLSA. A jury trial was held on the ADEA claims. On December 12, 1999, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all plaintiffs on their ADEA claims. Beginning on December 12, 1999, a bench trial was held on the FLSA claims. On September 19, 2000, the district court granted in part and denied in part Unocal's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the ADEA claims. The court set aside the verdict in favor of plaintiff Jessie G. Price (Price) and rendered judgment for Unocal on Price's claims. It upheld the liability verdicts in favor of each of the other plaintiffs, but lowered the jury's damage awards. Also on September 19, 2000, the district court issued its ruling on the FLSA claims, ruling in favor of plaintiff Donald R. Powers (Powers) and against plaintiffs Price, M. Leon Earles (Earles), and Thomas Hough (Hough).
The plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2001, the district court granted in part and denied in part that motion.
Plaintiff Price appeals the JMOL in favor of Unocal on his ADEA claims. Unocal appeals the judgments in favor of plaintiffs Donald Ray Tyler (Tyler), Powers, Earles, Hough, and David Burkett (Burkett) on their ADEA claims. Plaintiffs Tyler, Powers, Earles, Hough, and Burkett cross-appeal the damage award and the judgment against Earles and Hough on their FLSA claims. Unocal filed a separate appeal contesting the award of attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs cross-appealed the amount of the fees and costs award. The fees and costs appeal has been consolidated with the appeals on the merits.
We affirm in part. We vacate and remand as to the amount of liquidated damages.
For clarity, this section is divided into sub-sections, some presenting facts generally relevant to the entire case, others specific to particular plaintiffs or issues. Also for clarity, the following designations are used hereinafter: The Appellees will refer collectively to all the plaintiffs except Price (who was the only plaintiff to lose on all his claims at trial). The Plaintiffs will refer collectively to all the plaintiffs, including Price.
In late 1996, Unocal, an oil company, began a reorganization of its domestic operations in the lower forty-eight states. The reorganization resulted in a new business unit, Spirit Energy 76 (Spirit). The reorganization involved a reduction in force (RIF) plan. Under the RIF, employees who did not get positions in Spirit were eligible to be placed in a "redeployment pool" (the pool), from which Unocal could choose employees for available jobs. Employees who were laid off and placed in the pool received, in addition to other benefits, salary for up to four months, depending on length of service. The Plaintiffs were eligible to receive redeployment benefits and remain on Unocal's payroll until April 30, 1997. Employees could also opt to participate in Unocal's Termination Allowance Plan (TAP), which provided termination pay for employees displaced by the RIF in exchange for signing a release that purported to waive permanently all potential claims against Unocal relating to the adverse employment decision.
At the time of the RIF, the Plaintiffs were Unocal employees in the Permian Basin region in West Texas. Their positions, ages at the time of the RIF, and their years of service at Unocal were as follows: Price: Production Foreman over the Moss Unit, age fifty-five, thirty-three years; Hough: Health, Environment & Safety (HES) Coordinator in Andrews, age fifty-five, twenty-four years; Earles: Production Technician in Andrews, age fifty-three, twenty-two years; Burkett: Senior General Clerk in Midland, age fifty-five, thirty-seven years; Powers: Production Clerk in Andrews, age fifty-five, thirty-four years; Tyler: Field Superintendent, age fifty-five, twenty-seven years.
The Appellees all ended their job assignments with Unocal on December 31, 1996. Price ended his assignment on January 15, 1997. Tyler and Hough were officially terminated on January 31, 1997. Burkett, Earles, Powers, and Price remained on the payroll until April 30, 1997. Each plaintiff participated in the TAP and, after signing the required releases, received termination pay.
Jack Schanck, age forty-five, was made president of Spirit. As part of their attempt to show discriminatory animus, the Plaintiffs produced, inter alia, a memorandum from Schanck, dated March 14, 1996, which contained the following:
"Keep in mind that although you may consider that less experienced employees may not currently have as much of an impact on the company as those at higher T C P levels, their performance may actually be superior, and they may have greater technical potential."
This memorandum was issued to managers and directed the forced ranking of employees prior to the RIF. The Plaintiffs also pointed to excerpts from a letter written by Schanck to all employees in August 1996 which stated that Spirit Energy would be a "lean, quick-reacting organization" that would "not be constrained by an old Unocal way."
The Plaintiffs produced a Unocal policy manual that advised employees conducting a reorganization to ensure that plans "minimize the risk that personnel decisions can be viewed as being illegal employment discrimination" and that stressed the need to document non-discriminatory reasons for personnel decisions. In connection with the 1996 reorganization, Larry Love, a Senior Resources Consultant at Unocal, prepared an adverse impact study of the proposed RIF (the Love analysis). The Love analysis showed that there was a possibility the RIF would have an adverse impact correlated with age. Love submitted his analysis to Vice President of Human Resources Peter Vincent.
Texas is a "deferral" state (i.e., a state with a state law prohibiting age discrimination in employment and a state authority to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, 29 U.S.C. §§ 626(d) and 633(b)). Conaway v. Control Data Corp., 955 F.2d 358, 363 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1992). Under the ADEA, in a deferral state the limitations period for filing an age discrimination charge with the EEOC is effectively 300 days. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). Thus, a Texas employee's ADEA claims are normally time-barred if the employee fails to file an age discrimination charge with the EEOC within 300 days from the date of the unlawful employment practice. Plaintiffs Tyler, Powers, Price, Earles, and Hough filed their EEOC claims on March 9, 1998; Burkett filed his on March 13, 1998. The EEOC issued the Plaintiffs notices of right to sue on March 19, 1998, and the Plaintiffs filed their complaint on the same day. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that their EEOC claims were filed outside the applicable 300 day window. The district court held that equitable estoppel barred Unocal from asserting a limitations defense. The district court had previously denied earlier (pre-verdict) motions by Unocal to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims as time-barred.
The Plaintiffs testified that they believed they had signed away all potential claims and rights under the ADEA when they signed their release forms. Each of the Plaintiffs had signed a release form purporting to discharge Unocal from "all claims, liabilities, demands and causes of action" related directly or indirectly to the termination of employment. Hough signed an older version of the form that did not contain a specific reference to the ADEA. The other plaintiffs signed a newer version, drafted in 1996, that added a specific reference to the ADEA (the 1996 Release). In 1990, the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f), amended the ADEA. Under the OWBPA, for a release of ADEA claims to be effective, the release must meet certain requirements, including making specific mandatory disclosures. Blakeney v. Lomas Info. Sys., 65 F.3d 482, 484 (5th Cir.1995). Richard Ettensohn, an in-house attorney for Unocal and an employment law specialist, testified that he had drafted the release language and that it did not comply with the OWBPA. He admitted that the releases were not effective to release the Plaintiffs' ADEA claims. Unocal does not dispute that the releases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dewan ex rel. Situated v. M-I
...construed against the employer, and the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that an employee is exempt. Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 304 F.3d 379, 402 (5th Cir. 2002), citing Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220, 1224 (5th Cir. 1990); King v. Stevenson Beer Distributing Co., 11 F. Su......
-
Karna v. BP Corp. N. Am.
...858 F. Supp. 2d at 783 (citing Kohl v. Woodlands Fire Dep't, 440 F. Supp. 2d 626, 634 (S.D. Tex. 2006)); Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 304 F.3d 379, 404 (5th Cir. 2002). "To discern what an employee's actual, day-to-day job activities are, general job descriptions contained in an employee......
-
Gellhaus v. Wal–mart Stores Inc.
...construed narrowly against the employer, and the employer has the burden of proving that an employee is exempt.” Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 304 F.3d 379, 402 (5th Cir.2002) (citing Dalheim, 918 F.2d at 1224); accord Songer v. Dillon Res., Inc., 618 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir.2010); Cheatha......
-
Williams v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
...534 F.3d at 487; Haley v. Alliance Compressor LLC, 391 F.3d 644, 651 (5th Cir. 2004); Roberson, 373 F.3d at 654; Tyler v. Union Oil Co., 304 F.3d 379, 395 (5th Cir. 2002). Williams's "bald assertions of race discrimination are inadequate to permit a finding that proscribed discrimination" m......
-
Employment Discrimination Law?Overview & History
...of liquidated damages in an equal amount upon a finding that the employer violated the ADEA willfully. Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of Cal. , 304 F.3d 379, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2002); Woodhouse v. Magnolia Hosp. , 92 F.3d 248, 256 (5th Cir. 1996). This is mandatory and not subject to discretion. Tyle......
-
Statistical Evidence
...court’s decision not to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert evidence. Accordingly, the Court upheld the jury verdicts. Tyler v. Union Oil Company , 304 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2002), rehearing denied , 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21786 (5th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging violations of ......
-
Age discrimination
...to prove constructive discharge, however, as an objective standard of reasonableness must be shown. Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of Cal. , 304 F.3d 379, 394 (5th Cir. 2002) (transfer to another position with same salary did not constitute constructive discharge); Brown v. Bunge Corp. , 207 F.3d 7......
-
Age Discrimination
...to prove constructive discharge, however, as an objective standard of reasonableness must be shown. Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of California , 304 F.3d 379, 394 (5th Cir. 2002) (transfer to another position with same salary did not constitute constructive discharge); Brown v. Bunge Corp. , 207 ......