Warner v. Federal Express Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 November 2001
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.00-399 (SSB).,CIV.A.00-399 (SSB).
• Parties: Francis J. WARNER, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 215

174 F.Supp.2d 215

Francis J. WARNER, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. CIV.A.00-399 (SSB).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

November 9, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joseph A. Carmen, Haddonfield, NJ, for Plaintiff.

Carla D. Macaluso, John M. Nolan, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, Morristown, NJ, for Defendant.

Elaine K. Sanders, Memphis, TN, for Defendant.

OPINION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BROTMAN, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendant Federal Express Corporation's ("FedEx") motion for summary judgment requesting the dismissal of Plaintiff Francis J. Warner's ("Warner") age discrimination claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and breach of quasi-contract claim.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 3, 1983, Plaintiff Warner was hired by Defendant FedEx as a parttime courier. (Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 1; Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SOF") ¶ 3, Ex. 4.) On March 19, 1984, Plaintiff was upgraded to a full-time courier at FedEx. (Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 1; SOF ¶ 4, Ex. 5.) Plaintiff continued to work as a courier for FedEx until his termination on November 7, 1997. (SOF ¶ 6.)

FedEx utilizes a Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure ("GFTP") that allows employees to protest certain adverse employment decisions, including the decision to terminate an employee. The procedure is set forth in the Federal Express Employee Handbook ("Employee Handbook"). (SOF ¶ 25, Ex. 30.) On October 6, 1997, Plaintiff filed a complaint under the GFTP protesting his most recent performance review and requesting that Defendant lower his goal of stops per hour. (Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 1; SOF ¶ 29, Ex. 34.) During the investigation of Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant alleges that it discovered discrepancies in Plaintiff's delivery and pick-up procedures. (SOF ¶ 30.) Management determined that Plaintiff violated its Acceptable Conduct Policy by falsifying electronic documents and terminated his employment. (Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 1; SOF ¶ 33, Ex. 9.) Plaintiff proceeded to file another complaint under the GFTP protesting FedEx's decision to terminate him. (Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 1, Ex. 1.)

The GFTP entails a three-step process: (1) management review, (2) officer review, and (3) executive review. (SOF, Ex. 30.) At each level of review, FedEx is required to take certain actions to properly process an employee's complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff's complaint proceeded through Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3 of the GFTP. (Id.) The decision to terminate Plaintiff was upheld at each level of review. (SOF ¶¶ 34-36.)

Subsequently, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant asserting age discrimination and breach of implied employment contract claims. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his age in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that "[t]he Defendant ... retained younger employees with less experience and targeted the Plaintiff for termination based upon his age and experience." (Pl.'s Am. Compl., First Count.) Plaintiff also alleges that the GFTP established a quasi-contract that was breached by Defendant's failure to properly review the relevant facts of Plaintiff's termination as required by the procedure. (Pl.'s Am. Compl., Third Count.) Presently before the Court is Defendant's summary judgment motion requesting the dismissal of both claims.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is a stringent one, but it is not insurmountable. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment may be granted only when materials of record "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Serbin v. Bora Corp., 96 F.3d 66, 69 n. 2 (3d Cir.1996). In deciding whether there is a disputed issue of material fact, the court must grant all reasonable inferences from the evidence to the non-moving party. The threshold inquiry is whether there are "any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Supreme Court decisions mandate that a summary judgment motion must be granted unless the party opposing the motion "provides evidence `such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey, 98 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir.1996) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505). Once the moving party has carried its burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, "its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The non-moving party must "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [every] element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Serbin, 96 F.3d at 69 n. 2 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); see also Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3d Cir.1991) (declaring that non-movant may not "rest upon mere allegations, general denials, or ... vague statements"). Thus, if the non-movant's evidence is merely "colorable" or is "not significantly probative," the court may grant summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. DISCUSSION

A. New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Claim

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his age in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. The LAD provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer "because of the ... age, ... of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge or require to retire, unless justified by lawful considerations other than age, from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment...." N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). Age discrimination claims under the LAD and Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., are governed by the same standards of proof and burdens of persuasion. Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey, 98 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir.1996); Swider v. Ha-Lo Industries, Inc., 134 F.Supp.2d 607, 621 (D.N.J.2001). Therefore, it is appropriate to examine both federal and New Jersey case law to evaluate Plaintiff's age discrimination claim. Swider, 134 F.Supp.2d at 621.

1. Prima Facie Case

First, Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. To do so, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, "(1) that he is a member of a class protected by the antidiscrimination law; (2) that he was performing his job at a level that met his employer's legitimate expectations; (3) that he was discharged, and (4) that he was replaced by someone sufficiently younger to give rise to an inference of unlawful age discrimination." Swider, 134 F.Supp.2d at 621; see also Lawrence, 98 F.3d at 65-66. The plaintiff's burden at this level is not an onerous one, and it is generally not difficult to establish a prima facie case. Swider, 134 F.Supp.2d at 621.

Neither party disputes that the first and third prongs of Plaintiff's prima facie case are satisfied. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was 40 years old and, as such, was a member of a protected class. Also, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action in that he was in fact terminated. The second and fourth prongs of Plaintiff's prima facie case, however, are greatly disputed. Defendant argues that the second prong of the prima facie case is not satisfied because Plaintiff was not performing his job at a level that met management expectations. Defendant points to statements in Plaintiff's performance reviews that describe Plaintiff as "not interested in helping out where he might be needed," "less willing to handle packages that were to be delivered to out-of-the-way stops," and as not "cooperative if it wasn't to his advantage." (SOF ¶¶ 9, 10, 12.) Defendant also points to statements in these reviews which indicate that Plaintiff "milk[ed] the clock occasionally," "made additional work for himself," had "delayed" and "unacceptable" checkout times, and "needed to improve his on-road effectiveness to comply with station productivity goals." (SOF ¶¶ 16, 21, 22.) Additionally, Defendant submits a "Reminder Letter" that was issued to Plaintiff on November 22, 1995 for punching in early despite instructions from management to begin work at his scheduled start time (SOF ¶ 24) and a customer complaint filed against Plaintiff on March 7, 1997 which states that Plaintiff took packages from a customer even though she asked him not to and was not even on his route. (SOF ¶ 27.)

Although Defendant provides evidence which raises doubts as to Plaintiff's ability to meet legitimate employer expectations, Defendant fails to reveal that many of the negative comments in Plaintiff's performance reviews are couched between a plethora of positive statements regarding Plaintiff's work ability.¹ Plaintiff did receive low scores in certain areas of his evaluation, such as paper work accuracy, yet he excelled in many other areas. In fact, the majority of Plaintiff's performance reviews indicate that his overall work performance was "above satisfactory." (Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 2-3.) This evidence is more than sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact...