Porter v. Domtar Paper Company, LLC

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 21 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 1/18/2013. (psk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
TOMMY E. PORTER

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO.: 1:12CV001-SA-DAS

DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed this cause of action on January 3, 2012, alleging racial discrimination in
disciplinary actions taken against him by his employer, Domtar Paper Company in Columbus,
Mississippi. Domtar filed a Motion to Dismiss [4] alleging that Tommy Porter executed a
release of liability for all claims arising out of his employment or separation from employment as
part of his severance when the Columbus Mill shut down. Because that Separation Agreement
and Release is valid and binding, and Plaintiff failed to overcome his burden of proving duress,
the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss[4].
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 23, 2010, Domtar mailed letters to employees at its Columbus Mill regarding
the closing of that plant. Attached to the letter was a Separation Agreement and Full Release of
All Claims, which the letter instructed should be completed and returned within forty-five days
in order to receive benefits available under the severance package. For Tommy Porter, Domtar
offered a lump sum payment of $30,905 less standard payroll deductions, for his waiver of “all
actions, claims and liabilities of any kind arising out of either my employment with the Company
or my separation from employment.” The agreement further states:
This Release includes (but is not limited to) any rights or claims I may have
under . . . Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
discrimination in employment based on race, color, national origin, religion or
sex . . . or any other federal, state or local laws or regulations prohibiting

employment discrimination. This also includes a release of any claims for
wrongful discharge arising from my separation of employment and any claims
under any severance plan. This release includes both claims that I know about
and those I may not know about.
Tommy Porter signed the Separation Agreement and Full Release of All Claims on April 20,
2010. On July 22, 2010, Porter filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging he was
racially discriminated against while employed at Domtar. Domtar seeks to dismiss this cause of
action as being precluded by the Release and Severance Agreement executed by Porter.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
“The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid
claim when all well-pleaded facts are assumed true and are viewed in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.
2010) (citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)). Of course,
the complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The
court must not evaluate the likelihood of the claim’s success, but instead ascertain whether the
plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible. Lone Star Fund, 594 F.3d at 387
(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)).
Discussion and Analysis
The release of federal claims is governed by federal law. Rogers v. Gen. Elec. Co., 781
F.2d 452, 454 (5th Cir. 1986).

Public policy favors voluntary settlement of claims and

enforcement of releases. Williams v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 23 F.3d 930, 935 (5th Cir. 1994).
However, a release of an employment or employment discrimination claim is valid only if it is
“knowing” and “voluntary.” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 52 n.15, 94 S. Ct.
1011, 39 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1947). Once a party establishes that the plaintiff signed a release that
2

addresses the claims at issue, received adequate consideration, and breached the release, the
plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the release was invalid because of fraud, duress,
material mistake, or some other defense. Williams, 23 F.3d at 935. The court must then
“examine the totality of circumstances to determine whether the releaser has established an
appropriate defense.” O’Hare v. Global Natural Resources, Inc., 898 F.2d 1015, 1017 (5th Cir.
1990).
Porter does not dispute that he signed the Separation Agreement and Full Release of All
Claims. Nor does he dispute that he received the severance benefits as stated in that document.
Plaintiff, however, contends that the Severance Agreement and Release is void as it was not
supported by consideration and that he signed the document under duress.
Porter asserts that Domtar’s predecessor, Weyerhauser, promised severance benefits upon
downsize or shutdown in the employee handbook when he was hired. Therefore, any severance
benefits provided in Domtar’s shutdown would not be additional consideration for a valid
release. Porter’s claim that prior handbooks by prior employers promised severance benefits is
unsubstantiated. Plaintiff presented no proof that any such promises were made. Moreover,
Plaintiff has failed to show how or why Domtar could be held to that promise even if it were
made.
Porter claims the Separation Agreement and Release should be voided as he was under
emotional duress during the time he signed the document due to the prior discrimination he was
subjected to in February. Again, Plaintiff has presented no proof of duress in entering into the
contract. See Chen v. Applied Materials, Inc., 87 F. App’x 995, 997 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding no
duress where release stated in plain language that employee was releasing all claims as a
condition of the severance payment, he had 45 days to review the release, and was advised to

3

consult an attorney before signing). The Court finds it pertinent that Porter’s last day of work at
the Columbus Mill was on April 19, and he signed the Agreement on April 20. Thus, to the
extent that Porter argues he was under the duress of losing his job, the Court notes that he was, at
the time he signed the agreement, without a job. Porter’s arguments about intimidation and
coercion in his job are merely that, unsubstantiated argument.
Here, the Release is clear, simple and easily understood. The Release precludes all
claims arising out of his employment with Domtar or his separation from employment. The
Release specifically mentions Title VII, and further clarifies that that includes all claims of
discrimination in employment based on race, color, national origin, religion or sex. The Release
encourages employees to consult with lawyers and financial advisors prior to signing, and allows
forty-five days to consider the terms, and even allows a seven day window to revoke acceptance.
Accordingly, the Release signed by Tommy Porter was entered knowingly and
voluntarily and is valid and binding.
Conclusion
Porter executed a valid release waiving all Title VII claims against Domtar. Accordingly,
Domtar’s Motion to Dismiss [4] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of January, 2013.
/s/ Sharion Aycock_________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4