Young v. General Foods Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-3479,87-3479
• Parties: 46 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 534, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,912 Howard YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 825

840 F.2d 825

46 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 534,

46 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,912

Howard YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-3479.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

March 21, 1988.

John MacLennan, Kattman, Eshelman & MacLennan, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Patricia Sabalis, White Plains, N.Y., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HILL and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge:

This case involves a complaint filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the employee had failed to establish pretext, an element essential to his case. We affirm.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Howard Young began working for General Foods Corporation in 1960. Three years later, Young became a Military Sales Representative in the company's Military Sales Division, responsible for the area including Jacksonville, Florida. In 1981 Young and the other Military Sales Representatives were "upgraded" to the position of Territory Sales Managers (TSMs). In November 1982 Young was placed on probation for poor work performance, and on December 1, 1983 he was fired. Young was 59 years old at the time of termination. He was replaced by a man 26 years old.

During much of his tenure at General Foods, Young's supervisor was Robert Bell. Young received raises and bonuses during this period, although the bonuses were given in equal amounts to all TSMs in a region based on overall region, rather than individual territory, performance. However, Young's affidavit contains a performance appraisal written by Bell in 1981 that stated that Young had not met his budget for two quarters of the fiscal year, had a "tendency to become lax at times," and had failed to complete specific assignments and satisfactorily perform administrative tasks associated with his job.

In April 1982 John Biltgen replaced Bell as the Area Regional Sales Manager for the southeast region. Between April and November 1982 Young and Biltgen had several disagreements. Among other things, the pair disagreed over the value of making formal sales presentations. Several times Biltgen asked Young to develop a plan of action in that area; however, Young continued to rely solely on his past relationships with commissary officials in order to make sales. Biltgen also continued Bell's practice of formulating written "contracts" with each TSM. The initial agreement between Biltgen and Young, developed in April, identified goals in the areas of sales volume, business growth, personal development, and cost effectiveness. On October 28, 1982, Biltgen completed a six-month written evaluation of Young. The evaluation included statistical information showing that the sales volume growth and "budget accomplishment" in Young's area trailed that of the region average. Biltgen criticized Young's "[p]resentations of new ideas" and stated that Young was "not proactive in the presenting, following through or shelving of new items." A listing of new items to be distributed also indicated that Young had not met his distribution objectives, which resulted in some of Young's customers being the only ones in the region not to stock certain items. In the "business building" area, Biltgen criticized Young's lack of account development, noting that Young had neither developed a strategy to improve business nor submitted any merchandising ideas. Finally, Biltgen wrote that Young was "not maximizing volumes because of [his] non-aggressive/non-proactive posture" and that Young was "not managing in an aggressive manner and his trust level ha[d] been severely damaged." Excepting some of the sales figures, Young did not dispute Biltgen's comments contained in the evaluation.

Consequently, Biltgen placed Young on probation effective November 22, 1982. Under the probationary terms, Young would be subject to termination unless he showed "substantial progress" by March 1, 1983. In a May 1983 evaluation, Biltgen reviewed Young's status and concluded that, instead of being terminated, Young would "remain on formal probation with employment being extended on a month-to-month basis." At this time the majority of Young's sales and budget figures continued to be below the average for the region, prompting Biltgen to opine in the evaluation that "[t]here is ... the feeling ... that [Young] was not being proactive enough in going 'belly to the bar' with new items and following up accordingly." In Young's final evaluation of November 10, 1983, Biltgen wrote that some of Young's customers continued to be the only ones not stocking certain items, that Biltgen himself had been forced to make certain presentations that should have been completed by Young, and that Young had yet to present any ideas for building business. Biltgen also noted that Young's damaged merchandise expenses were the highest in the region. Prior to the final evaluation Young's budget accomplishments and volume figures had improved vis-a-vis the region; however, the improved volume performance resulted almost exclusively from sales of CRYSTAL LIGHT beverage. Because Young's territory was the only one merchandising the beverage, Biltgen recomputed Young's volume figures without CRYSTAL LIGHT sales in order to obtain a more accurate picture of Young's performance relative to the other TSMs in the region. The recomputed figures placed Young last in the southeast.

Approximately two weeks before filing the final evaluation, Biltgen informed Young that Young would be terminated prior to December 31, 1983. On November 14, 1983, Biltgen drafted a memorandum notifying Young of his termination, effective that date. On November 21-22, 1983, Biltgen met with Young and attempted to persuade Young to retire instead. When Young refused to do so, Biltgen again terminated him, effective December 1, 1983.

Subsequently, Young filed suit against General Foods, claiming that Biltgen's actions showed an intent to discriminate against Young because of age. Young pointed specifically to Biltgen's deletion from volume figures of Young's sales of CRYSTAL LIGHT, Biltgen's remarks that Young lacked the "wherewithal" to perform his job, "moved in slow motion," and was "not proactive" and "not aggressive." Young also stated that Biltgen had made a remark comparing Young's age with that of Biltgen's father. The district court granted summary judgment to General Foods, however, holding that Young had neither produced direct evidence of discrimination nor evidence of pretext undermining the employer's assertion that he was fired because of poor job performance. From that decision Young now appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

Young contends that the district court erred in not considering some of Biltgen's remarks to constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Young also argues that he established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether General Foods' rationale for his termination was pretextual. General Foods asserts that Young presented neither direct evidence of discrimination nor sufficient evidence of pretext to withstand a motion for summary judgment. We agree that Young presented insufficient evidence of age discrimination to require submission of the case to a jury and that summary judgment for General Foods, therefore, was appropriate.

A. Introduction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment shall be rendered if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [if] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." According to the Supreme Court:

[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The Court also has noted that "there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted); see Barnes v. Southwest Forest Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 607, 609 (11th Cir.1987) (equating standards for granting summary judgments and directed verdicts).

In cases brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving that age was a determinative factor in the employer's decision to terminate his employment. See Anderson v. Savage Laboratories, Inc., 675 F.2d 1221, 1224 (11th Cir.1982). Initially, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. One such way is to produce direct evidence of discriminatory intent. If a plaintiff produces direct evidence, the employer must then prove that the same employment decision would have been reached even absent any discriminatory intent. See Buckley v. Hospital Corp. of America, 758 F.2d 1525, 1529-30 (11th Cir.1985). Alternatively, a prima facie case may be shown by proving that the plaintiff (1) was a member of the protected group, ¹ (2) was discharged, (3) was replaced with a person outside the protected group, and (4) was...