Davidson v. Weyerhaeuser Corp
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM RULING GRANTING 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Weyerhaeuser N R Co. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 10/12/12. (crt,Crawford, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JOEY DAVIDSON
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0636
VERSUS
*
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
WEYERHAEUSER CORPORATION
*
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is a motion for summary judgment [doc. # 57] filed by defendant
Weyerhaeuser NR Company (incorrectly named in the complaint as “Weyerhaeuser Corporation)
(hereinafter, “Weyerhaeuser”). With the consent of all parties, the District Court referred the
above-captioned case to the undersigned magistrate judge for the conduct of all further
proceedings and the entry of judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For reasons assigned below, the
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED,
with prejudice.
Procedural History
On April 21, 2011, Joey Davidson filed the instant complaint under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623, against his former employer, Weyerhaeuser. Davidson alleged that
Weyerhaeuser unlawfully discriminated against him on the bases of gender and age when, in
2009, it discharged him from his position as a human resources executive providing support for
the Dodson Lumber Facility. He seeks damages consisting of lost wages, front and back pay;
emotional distress; humiliation; pain and suffering; loss of benefits; attorney fees; court costs;
and punitive damages.
On November 1, 2011, Weyerhaeuser filed a motion for partial summary judgment
seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim because of his failure to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.
Accordingly, on June 4, 2012, the District Court granted Weyerhaeuser’s motion for partial
summary judgment, and entered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Title VII gender discrimination
claim. (Mem. Ruling and Judgment [doc. #s 42 & 43]).
On September 13, 2012, Weyerhaeuser filed the instant motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s remaining claim(s) under the ADEA. Plaintiff filed his
opposition to the motion on September 25, 2012. Weyerhaeuser filed its reply memorandum on
October 2, 2012. The matter is now before the court.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence before the Court 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). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would
affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is
such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing
the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247). “The moving
2
party may meet its burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact by
pointing out that the record contains no support for the non-moving party’s claim.” Stahl v.
Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2002). Thereafter, if the non-movant is
unable to identify anything in the record to support its claim, summary judgment is appropriate.
Id.
In evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, the court must accept the evidence of
the non-movant as credible and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
255. While courts will “resolve factual controversies in favor of the non-moving party,” an
actual controversy exists only “when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory
facts.” Little v. Liquid Air. Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). There can be no
genuine issue as to a material fact when a party fails “to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-323. The non-moving party may not
merely rely on the allegations and conclusions contained within the pleadings; rather, the nonmovant “must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts in the record showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir.
1996). The non-movant does not satisfy his burden merely by demonstrating some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts, by setting forth conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated
assertions, or by presenting but a scintilla of evidence. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (citations omitted).
Moreover, “summary judgment is appropriate in any case ‘where critical evidence is so
weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the
nonmovant.’” Little, supra (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). In other words, summary
judgment is warranted if no reasonable juror could return a verdict in favor of the non-movant.
3
Uncontested Relevant Facts
As required by Local Rule 56.1, Weyerhaeuser marshaled its evidence into a statement of
material facts that it represents are not genuinely disputed. Thus, it was incumbent on plaintiff to
submit a countervailing statement of material facts that present a genuine issue for trial. LR 56.2.
Although plaintiff filed a “Statement [of] Facts in Dispute,” a significant number of the facts
identified by plaintiff merely restate the same facts set forth by Weyerhaeuser. Furthermore, the
remaining facts do not controvert defendant’s facts, and even accepting them as true, do not
suffice to defeat defendant’s motion. Accordingly, the court will consider Weyerhaeuser’s
statement of facts as undisputed for purposes of the instant motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2) & (3);
LR 56.2. Weyerhaeuser’s statement of facts are substantially incorporated herein and reproduced
below.1 The court also substantially adopts plaintiff’s statement of facts and intersperses them
with defendant’s facts below. Finally, the court includes facts of its own.2
a)
Weyerhaeuser Background Facts
1.
Weyerhaeuser is a forest-products company principally engaged in the growing
and harvesting of trees, but it is also engaged in the manufacturing of wood
products. (August 20, 2010 Letter from Rachel Drake to the EEOC; Def. Exh.
12).
2.
In February 2002, Weyerhaeuser acquired Willamette Industries where Davidson
had been employed since August 1, 1997. (Janice Adams Depo.; Def. Exh. 3, p.
16; Pl. Exh. 4).
3.
Weyerhaeuser’s Wood Products Division, which was known as the iLevel
Division at the time of Davidson’s termination in September 2009, operates
various types of manufacturing facilities or mills throughout the United States and
1
The court omitted some facts that were irrelevant or not supported by the cited
evidence.
2
Plaintiff’s facts include the prefix “P,” followed by the number. The court’s findings
are denoted as “Ct.”
4
Canada. (Peter Corak Declaration; Def. Exh. 1; see also Cheryl Bourn Decl., Def.
Suppl. Exh.).3
4.
5.
Each iLevel mill is supported by at least one human resources professional, who is
typically called a human resources manager and generally supports more than one
facility. Id.
6.
Within Weyerhaeuser, regional human resources managers report to human
resources directors. Id.
7.
In late 2008, Weyerhaeuser started to consolidate its human resources teams
supporting two iLevel units - Strand and Veneer Technologies, which were
thereafter called the Engineered Wood Products unit (“EWP”). Id.; Adams Depo.,
pgs. 19-20; Def. Exh. 3.
8.
This consolidation occurred operationally within Human Resources in 2008, but
continued into 2009 and 2010 on the business side within the mills and upper
management. (Adams Depo., pgs. 19-23; Def. Exh. 3).
9.
Lumber, another iLevel business, maintained its autonomy within the iLevel
organization, and together with EWP and other units, comprised Weyerhaeuser’s
iLevel Division. (Corak/Bourn Decl.’s, Def. Exh. 1, Suppl. Exh.; Adams Depo.,
pgs. 19-23, Def. Exh. 3).
10.
b)
When Davidson was terminated in September 2009, the iLevel division included
business units known as Engineered Wood Products (“EWP”) and Lumber, which
are greatly dependent on new home construction and the housing market; EWP
also included other units. Id.
As part of this 18-month consolidation and reorganization, Weyerhaeuser reduced
the number of Human Resources Director positions from ten to four. Id.
Plaintiff’s Background
3
Plaintiff contends that the court cannot rely on John Corak’s declaration because
Weyerhaeuser failed to disclose him as a potential witness. However, the substance of Corak’s
declaration generally relates to Weyerhaeuser’s business structure and the overall reductions in
force that the company underwent over the past few years. Furthermore, Weyerhaeuser remedied
this technical objection by supplementing the record to include a declaration by Cheryl Bourn, in
which she vouched for the statements in Corak’s declaration. See Bourn Decl.; Def. Reply
Memo., Exh. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
5
11.
Davidson was born in March 1954. (Drake Letter; Def. Exh. 12). Thus, he was
older than Dawn Leatherwood and Billy Benefield. (P23).
P1.
Davidson received bachelor and master’s degrees in Education from Louisiana
Tech University. (Pl. Depo., pgs. 20-26; Pl. Exh. 1).
Ct.
Davidson taught briefly at area high schools before commencing a 17 year career
with the Lincoln Parish Sheriff. Id., pgs. 24-27. Davidson spent several of those
years as an administrative assistant. Id., pgs. 28-29.
P4-5. In 1997, Davidson left the Sheriff’s office and went to work as a safety manager at
Willamette Industries. Id., pgs. 28-30. After two years, Davidson was promoted
to a regional Human Resources Manager position, where he oversaw
approximately 1,500 employees. Id.; see also P13.
12.
P10.
Davidson reported to Janice Adams from 2005 until 2008 when Adams assumed
Davidson’s position. (Davidson Depo., pgs. 161-181).
14.
c)
Following Weyerhaeuser’s acquisition of Willamette in February 2002,4 Davidson
became a regional human resources manager who supervised human resources
functions and mill-based managers at mills located in Dodson, Emerson, Zwolle,
Simsboro, Malvern, Taylor, and Arcadia, which were part of the iLevel division.
(Davidson Depo., pgs. 53, 58; Pl. Exh. 1).
Davidson worked for Weyerhaeuser from February 2002 until his discharge in
September 2009. (Davidson Depo., pg. 100; see also Def. Exh. 12 and P20).
Dawn Leatherwood Background Facts
15.
Dawn Leatherwood was born in February 1961. (Drake Letter; Def. Exh. 12).
P3.
Leatherwood completed about two years of college, but did not obtain a degree.
(Leatherwood Depo., pgs. 13-14).
16.
Leatherwood began her employment with Willamette Industries in October 1996
as an administrative assistant to several Willamette regional human resources
managers. (Leatherwood Depo., pgs. 22-24, Pl. Exh. 2; Pl. Depo., pgs. 86-87).5
18.
Leatherwood became a Weyerhaeuser employee in 2002 when Weyerhaeuser
4
Also set forth in P6.
5
See also P7.
6
acquired Willamette. (Leatherwood Depo., pgs. 22-24).
19.
20.
In 2006-2007, Davidson promoted Leatherwood to Human Resources Manager.
(Davidson Depo., pgs. 92-93).7
P9.
d)
In 2002, Davidson offered Leatherwood a position on his team. Id., pg. 27.
Davidson was Leatherwood’s immediate supervisor, and remained in that capacity
until 2008. Id., pgs. 28, 36.6
As Leatherwood made the transition to human resources, Davidson took her
around to plant management; consulted with her; completed training reports with
her; occasionally went over some things with her; and remained available for any
calls or questions that she had. (Davidson Depo., pgs. 362-363).
Billy Benefield, Jr. Background Facts
22.
Billy Benefield, Jr. was born in January 1959. (Drake Letter; Def. Exh. 12).
P2.
Benefield obtained a bachelor of science degree in Industrial Engineering.
(Benefield Depo., pgs.7-8; Pl. Exh. 3). He did not obtain a graduate degree,
however. Id.
23.
On March 17, 1985, Benefield began his career with TrusJoist Corporation as a
quality assistance technician at what is now the Weyerhaeuser Natchitoches mill.
(Benefield Depo., pgs. 11-13).
24.
Benefield became TrusJoist’s safety director in 1987; in 1989, he also assumed
the position of purchasing agent. Id., pgs. 14-15.
25.
In 1994, Benefield became the human resources manager for the Natchitoches
mill. Id., pg. 17.
26.
When Weyerhaeuser acquired TrusJoist in 1999 or 2000, Benefield chose to
remain in human resources at the Natchitoches facility. Id., pg. 21.
27.
Benefield also eventually became the human resources manager for the
Weyerhaeuser mill in Zwolle, in addition to his duties at the Natchitoches mill.
(Davidson Depo., pg. 117).
6
See also P11.
7
See also P8.
7
P11
e)
Davidson supervised Benefield during his tenure as regional human resources
manager (at least until the 2008 realignment). See Davidson Depo., pg. 257.
Janice Adams Background Facts
Ct.
Janice Adams was born in July 1956. (Adams Depo., pgs. 24-25; Pl. Exh. 4).
28.
In August 2005, Adams became a Human Resources Director with the Veneer
Technologies group of Weyerhaeuser; Veneer Technologies was a business unit
within iLevel. (Adams Depo., pgs. 17-18; Pl. Exh. 4).
29.
As a Human Resources Director, Adams was responsible for overseeing the
human resources function of Veneer Technologies, which included the
supervision of three regional human resources managers, including Davidson. Id.,
pgs. 17-18.
30.
For several years while he was a regional human resources manager, Davidson
reported to Adams. (Davidson Depo., pgs. 98-99).
P15
Adams always gave Davidson satisfactory review, even gave him a “high
achieves” score on his last performance review that she completed in 2009. (Pl.
Exh. 5).
31.
Janice Adams was longer-tenured in human resources and had greater seniority
than Davidson. (Davidson Depo., pg. 165).
32.
In 2008, the number of human resources directors was reduced from ten to four.
(Adams Depo., pg. 23). Adams’ position as a human resources director was
eliminated as part of this consolidation. Id., pg. 24. As a result, she assumed a
newly consolidated regional human resources manager role for the eastern United
States. Id.8
33.
Three regional human resources managers’ positions were merged into one. Id.
35.
In connection with the consolidation, Weyerhaeuser offered mill-based human
resources manager roles to Davidson and the two other regional managers
displaced by the reorganization. Davidson and Lesley O’Dwyer accepted the millbased roles; the third regional human resources manager declined, and instead
accepted termination, plus a severance package. Id., pgs. 26-27.
8
Plaintiff contends that Adams displaced him as area human resources manager because
she wanted to move back home. (P12; Davidson Depo., pgs. 161-162). Davidson conceded,
however, that he really did not know what happened to Adams’ former position. Id.
8
36.
37.
Prior to this reorganization, Davidson had been Dawn Leatherwood and Billy
Benefield’s direct supervisor. Id., pg. 29.
Ct.
f)
Following this initial human resources reorganization, which became effective in
October 1, 2008, seven human resource managers reported directly to Janice
Adams in her new role as a regional human resources manager: Davidson, Dawn
Leatherwood, Billy Benefield, Leslie O’Dwyer, Hank Goldberg, Bill Underwood
and Caroline Sarblah. Id., pgs. 27, 37.
Davidson accepted his new position, but he did not like it. (Davidson Depo., pgs.
164-165). He preferred to be a regional manager. Id.
Impact of the Declines in New Home Construction and the Housing Market
38.
The drastic downturn in the United States’ housing market over the past several
years compelled Weyerhaeuser to significantly reduce its operations nationwide
through the closure of multiple facilities, reductions-in-force at operating mills,
and the divestiture of two significant divisions: Fine Paper in 2007 and
Containerboard Packaging & Recycling in 2008. (Peter Corak Declaration; Def.
Exh. 1; see also Cheryl Bourn Decl., Def. Suppl. Exh.).
39.
Between 2008 and 2010, Weyerhaeuser’s iLevel division drastically reduced the
number of human resources directors, regional human resources managers – as
well as the overall number of employees and even executives - because the iLevel
business had dramatically declined due to the depressed economy and the housing
market collapse. Id.
40.
An unprecedented decline in the housing market caused substantial decreases in
production, which required Weyerhaeuser to close iLevel facilities, reduce and
consolidate iLevel production, and implement significant reductions in force in
the iLevel division. Id.
41.
The United States and Canadian iLevel employee population declined from
16,189 at the end of December 2005 to 6,039 as of December 15, 2011, an overall
reduction of sixty-four percent. Id.
42.
There were 57 human resources professionals within the U.S. and Canadian
iLevel operations as of December 2006. Id.
43
By January 2010, the iLevel human resources personnel had been reduced to 28.
Id.
44.
Davidson testified that he thought there was a slump in the housing business in
2007 or 2008 and that overall Weyerhaeuser was having trouble with its business
9
volume because production went down when orders declined. (Davidson Depo.,
pgs. 12 & 126).
45.
P26.
g)
Davidson testified that Weyerhaeuser was making reductions in force at mills and
also closing mills. Id., pgs. 128-130, 147, 149 & 229.
Davidson thought that Weyerhaeuser was reducing its manufacturing assets so it
could convert to an REIT. (Davidson Depo., pgs. 233-235).
Plaintiff’s Transfer to EWP Human Resources Manager
46.
48.
In his new mill-based human resources role, Davidson was to provide human
resources support to the Arcadia and Simsboro, Louisiana, facilities. Id., pg. 27.
47.
Following the reorganization, Davidson, Leatherwood, and Benefield became
peers as mill-based human resources managers. (Adams Depo., pg. 30).
49.
h)
In October 2008, Davidson was reassigned from regional human resources
manager to a mill-based EWP human resources manager over mills located in
Arcadia and Simsboro; Davidson continued to report to Adams in her new role.
(Davidson Depo., pgs. 74, 98-99, 101-103 & 160-165).9
Neither Davidson, nor another former regional human resources manager,
O’Dwyer, had their compensation reduced as a result of these changes. Id., pg.
39; Davidson Depo., pg. 176.
Elimination of Plaintiff’s Position as EWP Human Resources Manager
50.
After the October 2008 reorganization, Weyerhaeuser continued to experience the
effects of the significant housing market collapse. (Peter Corak Declaration; Def.
Exh. 1; see also Cheryl Bourn Decl., Def. Suppl. Exh.).
51.
Between the Fall of 2008 and the Spring of 2009, iLevel closed or indefinitely
curtailed and closed nine facilities in the eastern United States. (Drake Letter;
Def. Exh. 12).
52.
Consequently, in April 2009, Weyerhaeuser announced yet another reorganization
and reduction-in-force of the EWP human resources team. As a result, Adams
had to reduce her team from seven human resource managers to four. (Adams
Depo., pg. 37).
9
See also P13.
10
53.
One of Adams’ team eliminations was Caroline Sarblah, who was not willing to
relocate even though her facility had recently closed; Sarblah told Adams that she
did not want to assume responsibility for multiple iLevel facilities. (Adams Depo.,
pg. 50).
54.
Facing potential job elimination, Hank Goldberg decided that he would retire later
that year. Id.
55.
Sarblah and Goldberg’s departure meant that Adams had to select one more
position for elimination from the remaining five human resource managers. Id.,
pg. 57.
56.
Adams contacted iLevel’s regional and local mill managers, as well as Regional
Human Resources Manager J.R. Roth, for feedback regarding the individual job
performance of Adams’ team members. Id., pg. 40.
57.
Adams utilized the written competency feedback forms, similar to what she used
during her annual and mid-year performance reviews, as one tool for evaluating
how she was going to reduce her team. In addition to these forms, Adams also
utilized each human resource manager’s performance evaluations (“PGMs”) from
the prior two years, her own knowledge regarding her teams’ respective workload
and experience, and direct feedback from site leaders regarding the support they
were receiving from their current human resource managers. Id., pg. 49.
58.
Adams created a spreadsheet which combined each of the remaining six
managers’ PGM ratings for the prior two years and their average competency
feedback form scores to reach an overall rating. Id., pgs. 50-52; and Spreadsheet,
Pl. Exh. 9.
P25.
For 2007 and 2008, Davidson’s annual performance ratings were one point higher
than Benefield’s ratings. (Pl. Exh. 9).
Ct.
Conversely, Benefield’s Employee Advocate Rating and Administrative Skills
scores were significantly higher than Davidson’s. Id. Moreover, Davidson’s
overall rating was less than two tenths of a point higher than Benefield’s. Id. The
next lowest overall score was nearly two points higher than Davidson’s. Id.
Leatherwood’s overall rating was more than three points higher than Davidson’s.
Id.
59.
During this period, several mills closed, so Adams also looked at the closed mills
and who supported those mills as part of her evaluation. Id., pg. 55.
60.
Adams also considered continuity of human resources support and geography in
her analysis. Id.
11
61.
Adams received written responses from mill managers regarding Davidson’s job
performance, and also some verbal feedback while visiting with mill leaders.
Adams recalled that two mill managers, Johnny Carter and Steve Story, reported
to Adams that they did not want Davidson to support their mills because Davidson
did not add value. Id., pgs. 42-43.
65.
Because Janice Adams was aware of a possible vacancy in Lumber stemming
from the retirement of Janice Alexander, Adams asked JR Roth whether she
would consider filling Alexander’s position at the Dodson Lumber facility with
Davidson. Id., pg. 60; Roth Depo., pg. 7; Pl. Exh. 8.10
P18.
Adams could not transfer Benefield to the Lumber Division, because, outside of
the mills where Benefield actually worked,11 he was perceived as not being the
strongest human resources manager. (Adams Depo., pg. 59). Adams, however,
felt otherwise. Id. She believed that Benefield was a solid human resources
manager. Id.
P17.
Adams’ boss, Allen Bradshaw, told Adams that if she felt strongly enough that
Benefield was good enough to stay with Weyerhaeuser as a human resources
manager, then Adams needed to take responsibility for changing that perception
about him outside of those facilities. Id., pg. 60.
P19.
Adams and Bradshaw had told Davidson that if a human resources professional
needed to “be let go,” it would be Benefield. (Davidson Depo., pg. 288).
67.
Janice Adams explained to Roth that Davidson had been in a regional role with
EWP. (Roth Depo., pg. 11; Pl. Exh. 8).
Ct.
Adams told Roth that Davidson previously had worked in a regional capacity.
(Roth Depo., pg. 11). Roth cautioned Adams that the position at Lumber would
be considerably different than a regional role. Id.
Ct.
Roth knew that Davidson had some question marks regarding his ability to
manage and administer the day-to-day work required at the facility-level, because
10
JR Roth was a regional human resources manager for the Lumber unit. Furthermore,
while the EWP and Lumber units were part of Weyerhaeuser’s iLevel division, each unit had a
separate human resources management structure. (Ex. 1, ¶ 22; Ex. 2, pp. 184-186; and, Ex. 3,
pp. 58-59).
11
Mill managers, Steve Story and Debbie Tadlock, were very strong supporters of
Benefield. Id.
12
he had previous experience at a higher position. Id., pg. 10.
69.
Roth also had received feedback that Davidson was not tactically or
administratively strong. Id., pg. 11. While Adams acknowledged that this was a
concern, she assured Roth that Davidson remained committed. Id.
70.
Despite Roth’s concerns about Davidson, she agreed to accept his transfer to the
human resources manager position for the Lumber facilities in Taylor and
Dodson, Louisiana, effective May 18, 2009. See Davidson Depo., pgs. 172-174,
176 & 183-184; Adams Depo., pgs. 56-57; and, Roth Depo., pgs. 7, 15-18 & 3738; and Cheryl Bourn Depo., pg. 33; Pl. Exh. 6).12
71.
Roth became Davidson’s direct supervisor, and his salary grade was reduced from
Grade 42 to 40, a $14,000 pay-cut. (Adams Depo., pgs. 62-63; Roth Depo., pg. 6 ;
Bourn Depo., pg. 29).
73.
Davidson did not recall previously working with Roth. (Davidson Depo., pg. 187).
74.
Upon Davidson’s transfer to the Lumber division, Roth instructed him to contact
David West and Ben Freelon, the managers of the Dodson and Taylor mills where
Davidson would be providing human resources support. (Roth Depo., pgs. 14,1820).
76.
After Davidson’s meeting with West and Freelon, Roth solicited feedback from
them about Davidson. Id.
77.
Both West and Freelon indicated to Roth their willingness to work with Davidson.
However, because of the perception that Davidson wanted to work in a higher
level position, Freelon was concerned about how well Davidson would work in a
lower level position. Id.
78.
Carl Chapman, the Area Operations Manager for Lumber facilities that included
the Dodson and Taylor mills, also expressed some reservations to Roth about
Davidson’s acceptance of the Lumber position. Id.
79.
Chapman told Roth that because EWP had not wanted Davidson, he thought it
would be difficult for Davidson to meet the day-to-day administrative
requirements of his new position. Id.
80.
Chapman wondered out loud to Roth why Lumber should accept Davidson when
EWP had decided not to retain him. Id.
12
See also P16.
13
81.
Before she left Weyerhaeuser, Janice Alexander – the retiring human resources
professional whom Davidson replaced at the Dodson mill – spent two weeks with
Davidson helping him to transition to his new position. Id., pgs. 15-17.
82.
Alexander expressed concerns to Roth about Davidson’s ability to administer the
on-site, day-to-day human resources functions required at Dodson. Id.
83.
Alexander also told Roth that she was concerned that the hourly associate base at
Dodson would not receive the level of support that they needed from Davidson.
Id. Alexander was afraid that the hourly associates would not feel comfortable
discussing matters with Davidson. Id.
84.
Less than two months after Davidson assumed his new role with Lumber,
Weyerhaeuser announced the closure of the Taylor facility. (Davidson Depo., pg.
222). Davidson helped support this closure. Id.
85.
After the Taylor mill’s closure, mill manager Ben Freelon contacted Roth to
report that several hourly associates affected by the closure did not “appreciate”
how Davidson had worked with them on their benefits information. (Roth Depo.,
pgs. 18, 29-30).
86.
Roth testified that she provided Davidson with PeopleSoft reports from
Weyerhaeuser’s PeopleSoft system, the company’s confidential employee
software, because she believed that Davidson did not know how to access the
reports himself. Id., pgs. 25-26.
87.
Around the same time as the Taylor facility closure announcement, Weyerhaeuser
announced shift reductions at the unionized Dodson Lumber facility that
Davidson also supported. Id., pgs. 24-26; Declaration of Kathy Willoughby, Def.
Exh. 11.
88.
During the shift reductions, Dodson’s manager, Kathy Willoughby, reported to
Roth that Davidson “struggled” with the union contract bumping process at the
facility, which involved the creation of spreadsheets of employee names and
seniority dates in order to determine who would be laid off. Id.
89
Accordingly, Willoughby asked Roth if Dawn Leatherwood could assist Davidson
with the shift reductions to be implemented at Dodson. Id.
90.
Because Leatherwood reported to Janice Adams and both were part of the EWP
regional human resources team, Roth requested and received permission from
Adams to “borrow” Leatherwood from EWP to assist with the Dodson lumber
facility shift reduction. (Adams Depo., pg. 67; Roth Depo., pg. 26; and
14
Willoughby Decl.).
91.
92.
Following the Dodson shift reduction, Kathy Willoughby told Roth that she had
“appreciated all that Dawn Leatherwood had done, and that Dawn’s work on the
reduction in force had been outstanding. [She] also mentioned to JR Roth that
[she] would like to have Dawn Leatherwood for [her] human resources support at
Dodson Lumber instead of Joey Davidson.” (Willoughby Decl.).
93.
Davidson testified that Willoughby expressed her dissatisfaction with his
performance. (Davidson, pg. 210).
Ct.
Davidson believed that Willoughby was not pleased with him because he had
disagreed with her about the need for an extended re-training period for an
employee. Id., pgs. 210-214.
Ct.
Willoughby was born in February 1957. (Willoughby Decl.).
P21.
i)
Leatherwood successfully oversaw and completed the shift reduction at Dodson.
(Roth Depo., pgs. 25-27; and Willoughby Decl.).
Davidson worked with Willoughby but for a little more than one month before his
discharge. (Davidson Depo., pgs. 199-201).
The September 2009 Reductions in Force and Reorganization
94.
On August 20, 2009, Weyerhaeuser announced a third human resources
reorganization and reduction-in-force to the iLevel human resources team. Three
Human Resources Director positions were consolidated into one role: Cheryl
Bourn assumed this new role as the iLevel Human Resources Director. (Bourn
Depo., pgs. 5-6; Aug. 20, 2009, email from John Hooper, Def. Exh. 16).
95.
Weyerhaeuser instructed Cheryl Bourn to reduce the iLevel human resources
budget by at least $1 million. See Aug. 24, 2009 email from Cheryl Bourn; Def.
Exh. 17.
96.
On August 24, 2009, Bourn informed the iLevel human resources team, including
Davidson, that Weyerhaeuser would finalize its iLevel human resources
leadership structure by the end of the week, and that it would announce further
reductions in iLevel’s human resources structure by the end of September 2009.
Id.
97.
Bourn relied on Adams and Roth to evaluate the human resources professionals –
including Davidson -- within their respective regions. (Bourn Depo., pgs. 20-22,
25).
15
98.
On August 28, 2009, Bourn announced changes to the iLevel human resources
leadership structure which would become effective October 1, 2009. (August 28,
2009, email from Cheryl Bourn; Def. Exh. 18).
99.
As a result of these changes, Adams became the Regional Human Resources
Manager for South Manufacturing, and Roth became the Regional Human
Resources Manager for Southeast Manufacturing. (Bourn Depo., pgs. 6-7; and
Bourn E-mail, Def. Exh. 18). This change resulted in the elimination of two other
regional human resources manager positions. See Bourn E-mail, Def. Exh. 18).
100.
During this period, Roth and Adams discussed and exchanged charts describing
possible scenarios for restructuring iLevel’s human resources team; Roth and
Adams later presented some of these options to Cheryl Bourn for her review and
made various recommendations. (Adams Depo., pg. 70; Bourn Depo., pgs. 20-23;
and August 2009 emails, Def. Exh. 19).
101.
Janice Adams, Cheryl Bourn and JR Roth were the three Weyerhaeuser
individuals involved with the decision-making process for the human resources
reductions made in Adams and Roth’s units in September 2009. See e.g.,
Davidson Depo., pg. 264.
102.
In September 2009, Adams and Roth were peers and both reported to Cheryl
Bourn, who was the iLevel human resources director. (Peter Corak Decl.; Cheryl
Bourn Decl.; Davidson Depo., pgs. 186-187).
103.
The reductions implemented by Janice Adams and JR Roth affected, respectively,
EWP and Lumber mills in the southeast United States, not just in Louisiana.
(Peter Corak Declaration; Cheryl Bourn Decl., and Drake Letter).
104.
Weyerhaeuser evaluated all twelve human resources professionals within the
Southeastern United States as part of its September 2009 iLevel reduction in
force. (Adams Depo., pg. 70; Aug. 2009 E-mails, Def. Exh. 19).
105.
All but two of the twelve individuals whose positions Weyerhaeuser retained were
members of the ADEA protected class at the time of the reduction in force.
(Drake Letter).
Ct.
Two critical factors that guided the selection process were geography and the
overall performance reviews by the two leaders involved in the decision, i.e.,
Adams and Roth. (Bourn Depo., pgs. 17-29). They did not consider solutions
that required relocation because of the costs involved. Id.
107.
Early in the process, Roth and Adams identified the positions held by Ann
16
Williams (born in 1960) and Malinda Hitt (February 1954) for elimination, as
both employees’ human resources support was limited to tactical work. (Drake
Letter). Bourn approved these selections.
109.
110.
The other human resources positions, supporting facilities in Michigan, North
Carolina, West Virginia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Arkansas, were
maintained, as the human resources managers in those roles would provide
support to more than one facility and none of them required relocation. Id.
111.
Two of the human resources managers supervised by Adams and/or Roth who
survived the September 2009 purge were six or more years older than Davidson:
Bob Mabry, who was born in February 1948; and Bill Underwood who was born
in July 1947. See Drake Letter.
114.
j)
Williams and Hitt transitioned to other non-human resources roles within
Weyerhaeuser. (Drake Letter).
Debbie Burk was another human resource manager who preserved her position.
She was born in September 1955, and thus, was less than two years younger than
Davidson. Id.
Plaintiff’s Testimony Concerning Benefield and Leatherwood
115.
116.
Davidson consistently assigned Benefield and Leatherwood overall reviews of
“achieves” (the other two categories were “below” and “exceeds”). (Davidson
Depo., pgs. 258-60).
Ct.
k)
Billy Benefield, Jr. and Dawn Leatherwood were both experienced, qualified and
competent mill-based human resources managers who had reported to Davidson
when he was a regional human resources manager from 2002-2008. (Davidson
Depo., pgs. 83-86, 92-93, 257, 286-288, 340 & 362).
Moreover, Davidson assigned mostly “High Achieves” to Leatherwood. Id.
The Decision to Discharge Davidson
118.
Because of the Taylor mill closure in July 2009, the iLevel human resources team
for the Louisiana facilities included three full-time individuals who supported five
facilities: Dawn Leatherwood (Emerson and Arcadia); Billy Benefield (Zwolle
and Natchitoches); and Davidson (Dodson). (Drake Letter).
Ct.
Adams, Bourn, and Roth determined that in the Louisiana-Arkansas area, they
needed to reduce four human resources positions (Leatherwood, Benefield,
Davidson, plus Debbie Burk) to three. (Adams Depo., pgs. 77-78).
17
121.
Adams and Roth separately consulted with the leadership at the five Louisiana
facilities under their respective divisions. that they each supported. See Bourn
Depo., pgs. 20-30 and Plant Manager Declarations, Def. Exhs. 8-11.
122.
Kathy Willoughby, the Dodson plant manager, told Roth and Bourn that she
wanted to retain Dawn Leatherwood over Davidson to provide human resources
support for that facility. (Bourn Depo., pgs. 25-28; Willoughby Decl., Def. Exh.
11).
123.
Willoughby felt that Davidson exhibited a preference for higher-level human
resources responsibilities and was less willing to perform the human resources
generalist tasks associated with supporting a mill like Dodson, such as working
closely with Weyerhaeuser staff support software (PeopleSoft) and being able and
willing to handle routine day-to-day matters at the facility-level. Id.
124.
Johnny Carter of the Emerson mill told Adams that he wanted to retain Dawn
Leatherwood over Joey Davidson because she “was a much better human
resources manager than Joey Davidson had been or would ever be.” (Carter
Decl., Def. Exh. 8) (emphasis added).
125.
Carter told Adams that “Dawn Leatherwood was highly organized, had great
rapport with the work-force at Emerson when she provided support for that mill,
was virtually always accessible or available, understood Weyerhaeuser’s systems
and procedures, was aware of and concerned about the key factors for operating
and running the Emerson mill, was a great listener and tried to be objective, and
was courteous, fair, practical and professional in her dealings with employees and
issues that arose at the mill.” Id.
126.
Conversely, Carter told Adams that “Joey Davidson was generally not
organized or efficient, was not a good scheduler, was a poor planner, tried to
play politics in his dealings with the union, tended to disregard or discount
the input and views of me and other members of the mill management team
on matters pertaining to dealings with mill workers and mill operations, was
usually not interested in the opinions of others, was not open-minded, and
did not like to get involved in details or nitty-gritty work.” Id. (emphasis
added).
127.
Bourn was made aware of Johnny Carter’s concerns and his preference for Dawn
Leatherwood. (Bourn Depo., pgs. 29-30).
129.
Steve Story, the Natchitoches mill manager, was aware that Dawn Leatherwood
“had been consistently held in high regard by the mill managers she has supported
over the years.” (Story Decl., Def. Exh. 9).
18
130.
Debbie Tadlock, the Zwolle mill manager, had personal experience working with
Dawn Leatherwood, and told Janice Adams that she “had nothing but good things
to say about Dawn and praised her abilities and performance.” (Tadlock Decl.,
Def. Exh. 10).13
131.
Bourn was aware of Story and Tadlock’s views about Davidson, and their
preference for Billy Benefield. (Bourn Depo., pgs. 22-25).
133.
Steve Story, the Natchitoches mill manager, “told Janice Adams that Billy
Benefield, Jr. was always right there when he was needed and stayed on top of
things that needed attention” and that “that Billy provided great support for the
Natchitoches mill, and was always willing to go the extra mile, even if it meant
working long hours.” (Story Decl., Def. Exh. 9). Story added that “without a
shadow of doubt that Billy always had the company’s best interests at heart” and
that “it was a ‘no brainer’ to keep Billy on as the human resources manager for
Natchitoches.” Id.
134.
Story further told Adams that “Joey Davidson was usually not receptive to [his]
views or comments from other members of the mill management team” and that
“Joey was usually only interested in his own agenda.” Id.
135.
Story also told Adams that he “felt that Joey did what was best for Joey and
only did what he wanted to do,” that he “did not believe that Joey would
provide good support to the mill,” and that he “hoped that Joey would not be
made the human resources for the Natchitoches mill.” Id. (emphasis added).
136.
Debbie Tadlock, the Zwolle mill manager, told Janice Adams that she “definitely
wanted Billy Benefield, Jr. to continue as the human resources manager for the
Zwolle facility” and that Billy “was a seasoned, dedicated and valuable human
13
Plaintiff objects to the court’s consideration of Tadlock’s declaration because
Weyerhaeuser failed to identify her as a potential witness during the discovery process.
However, the substance of Tadlock’s declaration already appears in the summary judgment
record via Bourn’s testimony that she was aware that Tadlock “strongly” preferred Billy
Benefield to provide human resources support for her mill. (Bourn Depo., pg. 25). Furthermore,
plaintiff, himself, was well aware that the preferences of the plant managers, including Tadlock,
influenced the decision to terminate his employment. (Davidson Depo., pgs. 275-276).
Nonetheless, he did not take the depositions of any of the plant managers. Moreover, he has not
sought to defer consideration of the motion for summary judgment to permit him to marshal
requisite facts to oppose the motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). In short, plaintiff has not
demonstrated that he was materially prejudiced by defendant’s failure to identify Tadlock as a
witness. Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
19
resources manager who managed to balance and serve two different mills run by
two different mill managers.” (Tadlock Decl., Def. Exh. 10).
137.
Tadlock also told Adams that Davidson “seemed to be more about show and
less about work” and that it was her impression that “Joey would probably not
be effective as a human resources manager supporting one or more mills.”
Id. (emphasis added).
138.
While a lesser consideration, compensation costs were reviewed because Bourn
was tasked with making significant budget cuts - $1 million. (Bourn Depo., pgs.
18-20).14
139.
Davidson was earning approximately 35% more than Leatherwood and
approximately 45% more than Benefield at that time. Id.15
140.
In September 2009, Janice Adams, JR Roth, Cheryl Bourn, Billy Benfield, Jr. and
Dawn Leatherwood were all over the age of forty. (Drake Letter).
141.
Janice Adams is about two years younger than Davidson. Id.
142.
Billy Benefield, Jr. and Cheryl Bourn are about five years younger than Davidson.
Id.16
143.
JR Roth and Dawn Leatherwood are about seven years younger than Davidson.
Id.17
144.
Adams, Roth and Bourn ultimately decided to eliminate Davidson’s position.
(Roth Depo., pgs. 23-24; Bourn Depo., pgs. 21-32).
145.
Based on his experience with each of them, Davidson agreed that Janice Adams,
JR Roth and Cheryl Bourn were fair people. Id., pgs. 267-268.18
146.
JR Roth, Davidson’s supervisor at that time, made the decision to eliminate
14
See also P22.
15
See also P22.
16
See also P23.
17
See also P23.
18
Nonetheless, Davidson told Bourn that he thought her decision was “unfair.”
(Davidson Depo., pg. 246).
20
Davidson’s position. (Adams Depo., pgs. 69, 78; Roth Depo., pg. 23; Davidson
Depo., pg. 267).
148.
According to Roth, Davidson was let go because 1) they needed to make
reductions in the human resources area; and 2) because of her concerns regarding
Davidson’s “ability to handle the administrative, tactical, day-to-day work at the
Dodson facility that was required in this new HR organization.” (Roth Depo.,
pgs. 23-24).
Ct.
Bourn stated that the predominant factor in their decision to retain Benefield and
Leatherwood over Davidson was the support of the mill managers that each
worked with. (Bourn Depo., pgs. 21-22).
Ct.
Davidson believed that Roth and Adams should not have solicited opinions about
him from others. (Davidson Depo., pg. 281). Nonetheless, he agreed that the
human resources manager at a facility should work very closely with the plant
manager. Id.
149.
After Davidson’s discharge, Dawn Leatherwood retained the Arcadia facility and
assumed responsibility for the Dodson lumber facility. (Davidson Depo., pgs.
194-195).
150.
Debbie Burk took over responsibility for the Emerson, Louisiana facility which
was in her general geographic area. Id.
151.
Billy Benefield, Jr. remained with the Zwolle and Natchitoches facilities.
152.
On September 29, 2009, Kathy Willoughby notified Davidson that his position
had been eliminated. (Davidson Depo., pgs. 239-40).19
153.
A few days after his termination, Davidson spoke with Cheryl Bourn, who asked
him whether he would be interested in other non-human resources employment
with Weyerhaeuser – assuming a position were available. (Davidson Depo., pg.
247).
Ct.
Davidson did not tell Bourn that he was not interested in a non-human resources
position. Id.
155.
Cheryl Bourn told Davidson that the leaders in the region wanted to retain
Benefield and Leatherwood in their human resource manager roles based on an
investigation performed by Janice Adams and JR Roth. Id., pgs. 346-347.
19
See also P20.
21
Ct.
Davidson told Bourn that he had been told that Benefield was part of the problem,
and that he could not believe that they would keep somebody like Benefield over
himself. Id.
Ct.
Davidson reminded Bourn that Steve Story was on a performance plan that
Benefield was helping to oversee, and perhaps that was why Story was motivated
to express a preference for Benefield. Id.
Ct.
Adams testified, however, that she and Jan Morris had implemented the
performance plan for Steve Story. (Adams Depo., pgs. 60-63). Moreover, Dawn
Leatherwood conducted the investigation of Story, not Benefield. Id.
P14.
Adams never received any complaints from Leatherwood or Benefield about the
advice Davidson provided them as their supervisor. (Adams Depo., pgs. 29-30).
P24.
Furthermore, Davidson provided training and assistance to Benefield and
Leatherwood during the time that he was their supervisor. (Davidson Depo., pgs.
262-263, 288, 362-363).
Ct.
By 2006, however, Leatherwood said that she avoided seeking advice from
Davidson, and instead, sought counsel from others. (Leatherwood Depo., pg. 50).
Ct.
Leatherwood also testified that mill managers, Johnny Carter, Mark Noles, and
Ron Edinger were not admirers of Davidson. See Leatherwood Depo., pgs. 69-71.
Ct.
Leatherwood believed that part of Davidson’s problem was that he would tell the
mill managers what to do. Id., pg. 72. Unit human resources managers, however,
did not have that authority. Id.
159.
On July 16, 2010, Davidson filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) alleging age discrimination in
violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (“ADEA”) [Doc. 25-2].
160.
When the EEOC did not act on the Charge within six (6) months of its filing,
Davidson filed the instant Complaint against Weyerhaeuser, alleging age and
gender discrimination with regard to his September 2009 termination [Doc. 1].
161.
On May 12, 2011, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue regarding
Davidson’s ADEA claims [Doc. 25-5]
Law and Analysis
The ADEA provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer . . . to discharge any
22
individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.” 29 U.S.C. §
623(a). To establish an ADEA claim, “[a] plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the
challenged employer decision.” Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917, 922-23 (5th Cir.
2010) (citing Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., ___U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2351 (2009)).
When, as here, the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence to establish his ADEA
claim, the court analyzes the sufficiency of the evidence under the framework established in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973). Jackson v. Cal-W.
Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2010). Under this framework,
[a] plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must put forth a prima facie case,
at which point the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision. If the employer articulates a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision, the plaintiff
must then be afforded an opportunity to rebut the employer's purported
explanation, to show that the reason given is merely pretextual.
Moss, supra (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, plaintiff must adduce evidence that
“(1) he was discharged; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was within the protected
class at the time of discharge; and (4) he was either i) replaced by someone outside the protected
class, ii) replaced by someone younger, or iii) otherwise discharged because of his age.”
Jackson, supra (citation omitted).
Here, Weyerhaeuser does not contest that plaintiff meets the first three elements of his
prima facie case. (MSJ Memo., pg. 23). Rather, defendant contends that plaintiff does not
satisfy the fourth requirement of his prima facie case, as defined by a line of Fifth Circuit
23
decisions that limits the fourth element to “evidence, either circumstantial or direct, from which a
factfinder might reasonably conclude that the employer intended to discriminate in reaching its
decision.” Id. (citing inter alia, Woodhouse v. Magnolia Hosp., 92 F.3d 248, 252 (5th Cir.
1996)).
The court finds that the prima facie standard as defined in Jackson, supra merely serves
as a more expansive restatement of the prima facie burden set forth in Woodhouse, supra. In any
event, this issue does not materially affect the ultimate outcome in this case. See discussion,
infra. Accordingly, the court will adopt the more generous prima facie definition as set forth in
Jackson, supra. Under that standard, it is manifest that Davidson satisfies the fourth element of
his prima facie case because his duties were assumed by someone younger than himself.
Thus, at this point, the pendulum of production swings towards Weyerhaeuser to
articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision. In this regard, the
uncontroverted summary judgment record establishes that Weyerhaeuser let Davidson go
because it needed to make reductions in the human resources area, and because of his
supervisor’s concerns regarding his “ability to handle the administrative, tactical, day-to-day
work at the Dodson facility that was required in this new HR organization.” Two critical factors
that guided the selection process as to who would be let go were geography and the overall
performance reviews by the two leaders involved in the decision, i.e., Adams and Roth.
Furthermore, the predominant factor behind Weyerhaeuser’s decision to retain Benefield and
Leatherwood over Davidson was the support of the mill managers that each worked with.
The court finds that the foregoing rationale constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason sufficient to support Weyerhaeuser’s decision to eliminate plaintiff’s position. See Cherry
24
v. CCA Properties of Am., Ltd. Liab. Corp., 438 F. App'x 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpubl.)
(reduction in force is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination) (citation omitted);
Berquist v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344, 356–57 (5th Cir.2007) (reorganization of
department, which resulted in the elimination of plaintiff's position, constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination). Thus, the critical issue becomes whether plaintiff has
presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Weyerhaeuser’s proffered explanation for
its decision was, instead, mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. Jackson, supra.
“A plaintiff may show pretext either through evidence of disparate treatment or by
showing that the employer's proffered explanation is false or unworthy of credence.” Jackson,
602 F.3d at 378-79 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff also may
demonstrate pretext by adducing evidence that he was “clearly better qualified (as opposed to
merely better or as qualified) than the employees who are selected . . .” Moss, 610 F.3d at 922
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, to show that he
was “clearly better qualified” than another retained employee, plaintiff must present evidence
sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that “no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial
judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff for the job in question.” Id.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, “unless the qualifications are so
widely disparate that no reasonable employer would have made the same decision, any
differences in qualifications are generally not probative evidence of discrimination.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
Davidson contends that he clearly was better qualified than the two other Louisiana
human resources managers retained by Weyerhaeuser – Billy Benefield and Dawn Leatherwood.
25
Certainly, there is no question that Davidson obtained more advanced educational degrees than
Benefield or Leatherwood. Furthermore, as argued by Davidson, he had more experience at
higher level positions than Benefield or Leatherwood. However, greater work experience alone
does not suffice to raise a fact issue as to whether an individual is clearly more qualified than
another. Moss, supra (citations omitted). Moreover, it was precisely Davidson’s experience at
the regional human resources level that made him less attractive for the position of human
resources manager at the facility level.
Plaintiff argues that he was disadvantaged and penalized because of his prior work
experience at the regional level. Unfortunately, plaintiff is correct. However, that does not
suggest, let alone demonstrate, that plaintiff’s discharge was motivated by age. Plaintiff’s
discharge was the culmination of two prior reductions-in-force that resulted in his transfer to a
facility human resources manager position in the Lumber unit.
The court observes that plaintiff makes no creditable argument to challenge the
legitimacy of the 2008 realignment that resulted in the elimination of several regional human
resources positions and his reduction to the position of human resources manager at the facility
level. In fact, the two other area manager positions were eliminated, and the incumbents left the
company. Cheryl Adams assumed the role of these consolidated positions. If Weyerhaeuser’s
motivation was to rid itself of Davidson because of his age (and salary), it could have terminated
his employment at that point. Instead, Weyerhaeuser endeavored to preserve plaintiff’s
employment by moving him to a lower level position at the facility level.
Perhaps plaintiff’s best argument in this case stems from the May 2009 decision by
Adams and Roth to transfer Davidson from Adams’ purview within the EWP unit to Roth’s
26
oversight in the Lumber unit. Plaintiff argues that Benefield should have been transferred rather
than he. He emphasizes that Benefield suffered from a black mark in his record because he once
used an un-validated test to screen employees. Adams was aware of this issue. However, she
felt that Benefield was a strong performer. Moreover, Adams could not transfer Benefield to
another division because he did not have a good reputation outside of the facilities that he
actually supported. She, on the other hand, strongly felt that Benefield could be rehabilitated.
Accordingly, she sought to transfer Davidson instead.
Defendant contends that because Roth was the same person who accepted Davidson’s
transfer to her division, and also the same person who discharged him a few months later, there is
a presumption that her latter decision was not motivated by unlawful animus. See Haun v. Ideal
Indus., Inc., 81 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 1996) (discussing “same actor inference”). Plaintiff
contends that the same actor inference is inapplicable because J.R. Roth did not make the
decision to transfer Davidson to her division. Rather, the decision to transfer Davidson was
made by others, and, in any event, Davidson was inherited.
Plaintiff is only partially right. He is correct insofar as he argues that Roth was not the
person who selected him as a candidate for transfer. Instead, that decision was made by Adams.
On the other hand, there is no evidence that Roth was required to accept Davidson to fill her
vacancy. Prior to the transfer, Roth was made aware of some questions surrounding Davidson’s
ability and/or willingness to perform at the facility level. However, she accepted his transfer.
Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence to demonstrate that Roth had no choice in the matter.
Thus, nominally at least, Roth brought Davidson on board to her division, and then selected him
for discharge a few months later. However, because of the interwoven nature of the decision-
27
making process that also included Janice Adams and Cheryl Bourn, the same actor inference
remains weak, at best, and does not influence the outcome in this case.20
More importantly, however, is that there is no evidence that Adams and Roth knew at the
time of Davidson’s transfer in May 2009 that they were going to need to further reduce their
human resources manager numbers just a few months later. In other words, there is no evidence
that the transfer served as some intermediate step in a grand scheme to set Davidson up to fail.
In fact, Davidson considered Adams, Roth, and Bourn to be fair persons. Apparently, as far as
Adams and Roth knew, following the transfer, Davidson would have the time to hone his skills at
the tactical level, and to foster vital relationships with the mill managers and facility workers.
As it turns out, however, that is not what happened. Just a few months after his transfer,
Adams, Roth, and Bourn were required to further reduce their numbers. They considered other
options that entailed retaining Davidson in anticipation of future growth. In the end, however,
they decided that they needed to eliminate one position in the Louisiana-Arkansas area where
they were overstaffed. Based upon plant manager feedback, Davidson was the natural choice.
All of the plant managers polled preferred Leatherwood and/or Benefield over Davidson.
Several of the plant managers harbored rather unflattering impressions of Davidson. When or
how the plant managers developed these opinions is not particularly relevant, so long as they
were not based on a protected characteristic – in this case, age. Although Davidson did not agree
with Adams and Roth’s practice of soliciting opinions about him from others, he conceded that it
20
If Roth indeed was free to reject Davidson’s transfer, the record does not reflect what
would have transpired had she exercised that option. If Adams was not willing to transfer
Leatherwood out of her division, and unable to transfer Benefield, then her only option would
have been to discharge Davidson in May 2009.
28
was beneficial for a facility human resources manager to have a good relationship with the mill
manager.
As set forth in the recitation of uncontested facts, it is manifest that, for a variety of
reasons, the mill managers in Louisiana did not care for Davidson. In brief, plaintiff tries in vain
to undermine the reliability of some of those opinions. For instance, he argues that Steve Story
and Debbie Tadlock only interacted with him in his capacity as a regional manager. However,
the import of Story and Tadlock’s opinions is not necessarily so much as what they had to say
about Davidson, but that they strongly preferred Benefield.21
Of course, one mill manager who had secondhand experience with Davidson’s handling
of a reduction-in-force at the Dodson facility was Kathy Willoughby. Her maintenance manager
advised her that it was his impression that Davidson had little or no experience handling such a
task, and appeared to be having difficulty finding requisite information for the selection process.
(Willloughby Decl., Def. Exh. 11). Accordingly, Willoughby borrowed Dawn Leatherwood who
started the analysis from scratch and completed the task in just a few hours. Id. It was
Willoughby’s impression that Davidson appeared to be more accustomed to higher-level work,
while letting others handle more mundane, day-to-day tasks. Id.
In an effort to deflect the efficacy of this poor report concerning his handling of the
Dodson reduction-in-force, plaintiff stresses that he had been “perfectly capable” of handling a
closure at the Taylor facility, without any such issues. This argument, however, overlooks the
feedback from the Taylor mill manager, Ben Freelon, who told Roth that several hourly
21
Even if, as plaintiff contends, Steve Story was beholden to Benefield because of
Story’s own performance plan, this, in and of itself, does not reflect unlawful animus. Moreover,
contrary to Davidson’s impression, Dawn Leatherwood investigated Steve Story, not Benefield.
29
associates affected by the closure did not “appreciate” how Davidson had worked with them on
their benefits information. (Roth Depo., pgs. 18, 29-30). Moreover, Freelon was not the only
person who questioned Davidson’s support for the hourly associates – so did Janice Alexander
and Dawn Leatherwood.
Furthermore, many of the mill/plant managers had the impression that Davidson did not
have the heart for the nitty-gritty, front line work in the trenches. They thought that he would
prefer the more hands-off role of a regional manager. And they were correct. Although plaintiff
accepted his reassignment to a facility-level position he admitted that he did not like it.
(Davidson Depo., pg. 165). He wanted to be a regional manager. Id.
In spite of the plant/mill managers’ uniformly unfavorable opinions of Davidson at the
facility level, Davidson returns to the refrain that his superior education, greater experience, and
high performance reviews demonstrate that he was clearly better qualified than Benefield and
Leatherwood. Davidson, however, has not demonstrated that a graduate or even a college degree
were needed to successfully perform the plant/mill level human resources manager position. In
fact, Davidson promoted Dawn Leatherwood to the human resources manager position, and then
proceeded to assign her high marks for her work. Moreover, if Leatherwood was able to succeed
at her position despite her lack of a college degree, then clearly Benefield’s degree more than
qualified him for the position. Furthermore, Benefield had worked as a human resources
manager in a mill/plant setting longer than Davidson had. Also, Benefield’s tenure at
Weyerhaeuser was longer than Davidson’s.
Davidson emphasizes the fact that he trained Benefield and Leatherwood. That fact,
however, does not necessarily advance his cause. It just as equally establishes that Benefield and
30
Leatherwood surpassed Davidson in their ability to serve as plant/mill human resources
managers.
Davidson also touts his annual peformance scores. However, at least some of them
covered the period when he was still a regional manager, rather than after his 2008 reassignment
to a facility human resources manager. Moreover, Davidson’s total, composite score was
negligibly higher than Benefield’s tally. In fact, Benefield scored higher in most, if not, all of the
practical skills scores.
In sum, plaintiff clearly believed that he was superior to his former subordinates,
Benefield and Leatherwood. However, the area plant/mill managers did not share Davidson’s
opinion of his own abilities to add value at the facility level. Plaintiff puts forth various reasons
why the plant/mill managers did not want him as a human resources manager at their facilities.
None of these reasons, however, stem from his age. Because plaintiff was working from the
assumption that he was better than his former subordinates, he naturally concluded that the
decision to discharge him must have arisen from unlawful animus – if not because of his gender,
then because of his age. However, the instant summary judgment record provides ample, unrebutted evidence to refute plaintiff’s assumption, and that supports Weyerhaeuser’s decision to
discharge plaintiff. As the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized,
[t]he ADEA was not intended to be a vehicle for judicial second-guessing of
employment decisions nor was it intended to transform the courts into personnel
managers. The ADEA cannot protect older employees from erroneous or even
arbitrary personnel decisions, but only from decisions which are unlawfully
motivated.
Moss, supra (citing Bienkowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503, 1507-08 (5th Cir.1988)).
In this case, although plaintiff’s counsel has admirably endeavored to create a genuine
issue of material fact as to pretext, the court is compelled to find that, based on the existing
31
summary judgment record as argued by the parties, no reasonable juror could return a verdict in
favor of plaintiff. Stated differently, the existing evidence would not suffice to withstand a
directed verdict in favor of defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact, and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment [doc. # 57] filed by defendant
Weyerhaeuser NR Company (incorrectly named in the complaint as “Weyerhaeuser
Corporation”) is hereby GRANTED. Judgment shall issue dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s
claims, in their entirety, at plaintiff’s cost.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 12th day of
October 2012.
___________________________
Karen L. Hayes
U.S. Magistrate Judge
32
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?