Wrolstad v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y

Decision Date04 April 2017
Docket Number15–cv–798–jdp
Citation274 F.Supp.3d 894
Parties Gary WROLSTAD, Plaintiff, v. CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin

Sally A. Stix, Timothy M. Scheffler, Stix Law Offices, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff.

Thomas Reed Crone, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Madison, WI, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

JAMES D. PETERSON, District Judge

Plaintiff Gary Wrolstad worked for defendant CUNA Mutual Insurance Society for more than 25 years. Then, in 2009, his department's priorities shifted, and senior management began demanding more from Wrolstad. Whether these evolving standards were adequately communicated to Wrolstad is an open question, but in fall 2009, the company decided to eliminate Wrolstad's position and assign his duties to a more senior employee. Wrolstad applied for several other positions with the company around that time, but the company refused to hire him in any of these capacities. Wrolstad signed a Waiver and Release of All Claims in exchange for severance pay and other consideration, and he left the company on December 30, 2009.

Several months later, Wrolstad filed an age discrimination complaint against CUNA Mutual with the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission. As a result, CUNA Mutual turned around and sued him in state court for violating the terms of the Waiver and Release of All Claims. So Wrolstad filed this suit, bringing discrimination and retaliation claims against CUNA Mutual under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

Now CUNA Mutual has moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 10. In response, Wrolstad has moved for leave to amend his complaint to drop a number of allegations and claims. Dkt. 42. Wrolstad concedes that he cannot adduce sufficient evidence to sustain discrimination claims as to four of the five positions he applied for and did not secure.1 CUNA Mutual agrees to the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments will streamline summary judgment, so the court will grant Wrolstad's motion. Wrolstad's proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 43, is the operative complaint, and the court will redirect CUNA Mutual's motion for summary judgment toward that pleading.

Because Wrolstad has not adduced evidence sufficient to sustain his remaining discrimination claims, and because Wrolstad's retaliation claim is time barred, the court will grant CUNA Mutual's motion for summary judgment and close this case.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

Except where noted, the following facts are undisputed.

A. Wrolstad's employment and termination

CUNA Mutual provides insurance products and financial services to credit unions and their members throughout the United States. Wrolstad began working for CUNA Mutual in 1984. Over the course of his employment there, Wrolstad held a variety of positions. Most recently, beginning in August 2006, Wrolstad worked as a financial reporting manager. Wrolstad worked as a financial reporting manager until December 30, 2009, when CUNA Mutual eliminated that position and terminated Wrolstad.

In July 2009, Michael Bress became CUNA Mutual's Vice President, Corporate Financial Planning & Analysis, and, in that capacity, oversaw Wrolstad (among others). Bress reported to Jerry Pavelich, CUNA Mutual's CFO at that time. In response to "a good deal of dissatisfaction with [the Corporate Financial Planning & Analysis] area of CUNA Mutual," Bress began exploring how to better organize the department and improve its financial reports. Dkt. 37, ¶ 18. In particular, CUNA Mutual's senior leadership wanted more analysis in the financial reports: they wanted the reports to explain the data and "tell a story." Id. ¶ 26. Wrolstad prepared those reports, and these new goals marked the beginning of the end for Wrolstad.

Tim Nygard, Wrolstad's direct supervisor at that time, addressed these new, increased expectations during Wrolstad's 2009 mid-year review. Wrolstad's mid-year evaluation—prepared in September 2009—provided:

Areas for development that have been observed in the short managerial window needed for the evolving expectations of the Corporate FP&A group:
• Change agency: with the group change, the focus has been on replication of the existing model. Success of the group will require crafting a new vision for reporting.
• Strategic view: reporting historically has been expected to be a compliance exercise which has been very focused on rudimentary variance analysis. Reporting commentary needs to move focus to impact of results upon expected performance (forecast) and alignment with strategic vision.
• Root cause analysis: variance analysis needs to move to a root cause from the strict plan vs. actual line item variance.
These will challenge [Wrolstad] as the Corporate FP & A group evolves to this new set of expectations. He will need to leverage his strong historical knowledge, network and work ethic to continue to be successful this year.
In the short term, I look to [Wrolstad] to draft an individual development plan (IDP) and establish goals for the rest of the year that take the above into consideration.

Id. ¶ 30. For his part, Wrolstad commented, "I feel like my job is to prepare and review our monthly financial results in formats that are understandable to most people in the company. I interact with and work well with a diverse group of personalities." Id. ¶ 31.

Around that time, Bress told Wrolstad, "Jerry doesn't like the reports." Dkt. 27, ¶ 18. Wrolstad states that he did not understand what Bress and Pavelich expected, that Bress did not explain the comment, and that the performance review did not provide any concrete guidance for him. Wrolstad believes that the mid-year evaluation was not fair to him: he "was criticized for needing more strategic analysis in [his] reports when [he] was never told that by Nygard, Bress or Pavelich." Id. ¶ 14. Bress—apparently rightly so—did not believe that Wrolstad understood what needed to be done, and he did not see any improvement in Wrolstad's work over the next several months, in terms of incorporating more "analysis" into his reports.

In October 2009, Nygard left and Bress began directly supervising Wrolstad. Around that time, Bress prepared a proposed reorganization plan for the Corporate Financial Planning & Analysis department, per Pavelich's request. Bress proposed that the director of financial reporting or a new, more senior financial reporting position take over financial reporting—i.e., Wrolstad's work. Bress developed a position description for a "senior manager, corporate financial reporting position." Dkt. 37, ¶ 49. The new position was different than Wrolstad's. Wrolstad's position produced financial reports to present "business execution results to senior leadership" and "measure the various activities in which the business division is engaged." Id. ¶ 52. The new position focused on "operational analysis," identifying "root cause variance drivers," and "interpret[ing] the impact on current and expected performance of the organization." Id. ¶ 53. The new position also required more experience and a number of other more advanced qualifications.

On November 1, 2009, Bress informed human resources that he would be eliminating Wrolstad's position, but he hoped to place Wrolstad elsewhere in the company. Human resources identified an opening for a position similar to Wrolstad's, and Bress passed the information along to Wrolstad. Bress and human resources met with Wrolstad on November 20, 2009, to inform him that the company would be eliminating his position, effective January 1, 2010. At that meeting, Bress told Wrolstad that he had decided to eliminate the position not because of Wrolstad's performance but because of the company's evolving needs. Later, after the meeting, Bress, Wrolstad, and human resources agreed to move his last day up to December 30, 2009, to better take advantage of retiree medical benefits.

On December 4, 2009, Wrolstad received a letter that outlined the nature of his separation from the company, including his right to seek other employment within the company, and a Waiver and Release of All Claims. By signing the Waiver, Wrolstad received 50 weeks of severance pay.

Wrolstad's last day in the office was December 18. Between December 18 and 30, Wrolstad had trouble accessing CUNA Mutual's internal job board. Human resources acknowledged the problem on December 23 and sent Wrolstad a list of job postings.

Wrolstad was 52 years old when CUNA Mutual eliminated his position.

B. Wrolstad's application for a new position

Wrolstad applied for a job with CUNA Mutual as a pension participant support specialist (PPSS). Put simply, it was a customer service job. The job required knowledge of 401Ks and similar investment and retirement plans, the ability to identify sales opportunities and obtain referrals, and strong customer communication skills. About 100 people applied for the PPSS position, including Wrolstad and three other internal applicants. An outside recruiter's interview notes—CUNA Mutual was using the recruiter to screen applicants at that time—indicate that Wrolstad was "very overqualified" for the position but that he did not want to leave the company. Jeffrey Zimmer, the hiring manager at the time, felt that although Wrolstad had a lot of experience, it was not particularly relevant to the PPSS position. During the interview process, Wrolstad stated that he would be willing to work for $55,000 (a pay cut compared to his recently eliminated job); Zimmer reports that he would not have considered hiring someone for the PPSS position for that kind of money (the pay range for a PPSS was $32,390 to $52,665, and no one in that position at that time was at or close to the maximum end of the range). Wrolstad disputes this characterization of his statement and claims that he would have accepted the position for $42,527 or less; no one ever countered his initial $55,000.

On February 3, 2010, Zimmer offered the position to Josh Logemann, an external applicant, at a starting salary of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Estate of Williams v. City of Milwaukee, Case No. 16–CV–869–JPS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 4 Agosto 2017
  • Wade v. Ind. Univ. Sch. of Med.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • 12 Julio 2019
    ...summary judgment, a plaintiff must show that her "age was the 'but-for' cause" of her termination. Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Ins. Soc'y, 274 F. Supp. 3d 894, 900 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (citing Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177-78 (2009)). "The ordinary meaning of the ADEA's requirem......
  • Cabak v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 18-cv-791-bbc
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • 15 Noviembre 2019
    ...claim); McNeil v. Salvation Army, 754 Fed. Appx. 469, 471 (7th Cir. 2019) (ADA retaliation claim); Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, 274 F. Supp. 3d 894, 902 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002) (wi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT