|
Brocklehurst v. PPG Industries, Inc.,
123 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. (Mich.) Aug. 18, 1997)
The Plaintiff, Brocklehurst, was hired by the Defendant automobile
products supplier when he was 40 years old. He advanced through the ranks and,
for the most part, was evaluated as satisfactory. His supervisor did note, however,
that he needed to improve his client relationships and exercise more control over
more PPG programs.
In 1990, PPG began to suffer a decline in profitability,
which led to a workforce reduction. The workforce reduction was to affect all
levels of PPG personnel, and performance was to be the sole criterion for determining
which employees would be discharged. PPG managers ranked their subordinates. The
Plaintiff was at the bottom of his peer group’s list. Mr. Pollock, Vice-President
of automotive products, and head Brocklehurst’s department, made the ultimate
decision to fire the Plaintiff, noting that Brocklehurst was a self-promoter but
not a hard worker. It is undisputed that Pollock did not know Brocklehurst’s
age at the time he terminated the Plaintiff, which was 48. Phil Johnson was promoted
to perform the Plaintiff’s former duties. PPG fired 130 employees as part
of the workforce reduction program at a cost savings of $7 million.
The Plaintiff brought suit under Michigan’s ELCRA. A federal
jury granted the Plaintiff an award of $1.5 million. The district court remitted
the award to $528,818.00. Both parties appealed.
PPG asserted on appeal that it was entitled to judgment
as a matter of law, because the Plaintiff failed to prove that age was a determining
factor in PPG’s decision to terminate him. The Sixth Circuit pointed out
that a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate
only when there is no factual dispute upon which reasonable minds could differ.
The court then noted that Michigan courts look to federal law when reviewing claims
of age discrimination under the Elliot-Larsen Act. The Court of Appeals also noted
that, following this standard, Michigan courts require that a plaintiff must present
sufficient evidence that age was a determining factor in a defendant’s decision
to discharge her.
The Court of Appeals examined whether the case at hand
was a true workforce reduction case. The Court held that an employee is not eliminated
as part of a workforce reduction when she is replaced after discharge. The Court
of Appeals then noted that, because it was essential to the company, PPG did not
eliminate the Plaintiff’s position. What did happen was that Johnson moved
up to fill the Plaintiff’s vacant position and another employee moved up
to fill Johnson’s position. The third employee’s vacant position was
left unfilled. Thus, two employees remained where there had originally been three.
The court held that, for an employee to be found to be discharged as part of a
workforce reduction, it does not need to be demonstrated that the employee’s
position was eliminated. The court noted that many important positions cannot
be eliminated, but rather, as part of a workforce reduction plan, are consolidated.
This being the case, the Sixth Circuit found that the Plaintiff was discharged
as part of an economically motivated workforce reduction plan.
Having so held, the Court of Appeals noted that the question
then became whether the Plaintiff was targeted for discharge because of his age.
The court boiled the Plaintiff’s claims down to three points. First, the
Plaintiff argued that he was qualified but was replaced by a younger employee.
The court noted, however, that, while the Plaintiff received mediocre evaluations,
his replacement, Johnson, received excellent evaluations.
Second, the Plaintiff also noted questionable statements
made by Pollock and Hovarth, the two men who decided that the Plaintiff should
be fired. Several of these statements indicated that the Plaintiff had reached
the end of his potential. The court noted that an employee could reach the end
of her potential at any age. The court held that the statements reflected the
two supervisors’ opinion that the Plaintiff’s abilities for growth in
his job, as compared to his peers’ similar abilities, had ended. The Plaintiff
pointed out the fact that Pollock inquired about the possibility of the workforce
reduction plan having an adverse impact on the employee population in terms of
race, sex, and age. The court, however, noted that there was no evidence that
PPG used a quota system to decide which employees would be terminated. The Plaintiff
noted that his supervisor told him that he had lost his vitality. The court found
that the term "vitality," as it was used in the Plaintiff’s situation,
was a term of art used to address the employee’s ability to generate sales,
having nothing to do with age.
Finally, the Plaintiff pointed out that the other three managers
at the Plaintiff’s peer level, whom PPG terminated, were over 40 years old.
The court, though, noted that, of the fourteen managers in the Plaintiff’s
peer group, only three were under 40 years of age. Moreover, of the three managers
discharged, one was not replaced; another, age 41, was replaced by a 48-year-old;
and the last manager, age 44, was replaced by a 46-year-old.
The Court of Appeals said that all of this evidence showed
that PPG discharged Brocklehurst as part of an economically motivated workforce
reduction, without regard to his age. The court held that no reasonable jury,
even when viewing the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to Brocklehurst, could have found otherwise. Having so held, the court
ruled that PPG was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Thus, it reversed
the judgment of the district court and remanded the case with instructions to
enter judgment in favor of PPG on the Plaintiff’s claim.
- Back to Sixth Circuit Court Cases
-
|
