Then again, it may have been that "FU" text I sent the boss.
You can't make this stuff up.
For those of you who think I'm too hard on employers, today is your day. There was an excellent pro-employer decision recently from the Iowa Supreme Court. I have a lot to say about it, so I'll jump right in.
"F*** You," boss!
David Feeback was a 60-year-old supervisor at a Swift Pork Company plant in Marshalltown, Iowa. He was only two years away from being eligible to retire. He'd received raises and good performance reviews, but he started butting heads with his bosses about seven months before his termination.
Among other things, Mr. Feeback and the other supervisors were responsible for seeing that all of their employees got their annual safety training. As of December 31 -- that would be New Year's Eve -- Mr. Feeback's employees still hadn't had their training, so Mr. Feeback scheduled it for that afternoon. The company usually gave employees half the day off on New Year's Eve, but instead of drinking champagne and watching the ball drop, Mr. Feeback's employees would have been slogging through the annual safety training that should have taken place on an earlier -- and less rockin' -- day of the year.
The general manager at the plant overruled Mr. Feeback's decision to have the safety training on New Year's Eve, and sent the employees home. For which, I am sure, the employees were grateful. Then the GM called Mr. Feeback and Mr. Feeback's immediate supervisor into his office, and dressed Mr. Feeback down. When Mr. Feeback tried to argue, the general manager told him that he should listen "with his mouth shut and his arms open." The GM also said that one of Mr. Feeback's employees reported that Mr. Feeback had called the GM the worst manager he'd ever had.
Mr. Feeback kept his mouth shut, as instructed, and left the meeting. Whether his arms were open was not reported by the Court. That evening, the GM received a text from Mr. Feeback saying, "F*** You!" Except the real text did not have asterisks, and the "F" word was fully spelled out in all caps. Then the GM received a second text from Mr. Feeback saying, "Believe who and what you want."
On New Year's morning, Mr. Feeback was called in by the Human Resources Director to explain himself. He said he meant to send the "FU!" text to a friend rather than to the GM. When asked why he didn't call back the text or try to explain his "mistake," he said that he didn't know how to call back a text and that he hadn't seen the GM yet that morning. Mr. Feeback was promptly suspended pending further investigation.
A few days later, the company decided to terminate Mr. Feeback's employment. Mr. Feeback was replaced by a 50-year-old.
The company's investigation
Did the HR Director conduct an expensive, time-consuming investigation? It doesn't sound like it. But he conducted a smart investigation. Here's how he determined that Mr. Feeback probably hadn't made an innocent mistake in sending those texts to his GM:
- Before New Year's Eve, Mr. Feeback hadn't sent a text to the GM since September 15, making it very unlikely that any accidental text sent on NYE would have gone to the GM.
- In addition to not calling back the "FU!" text, Mr. Feeback didn't follow up with a text to the GM explaining and begging forgiveness for his "mistake."
- In addition to not texting an apology to the GM, Mr. Feeback did not call the GM or make any other attempt to explain or apologize.
- In addition to not apologizing somehow or other to his GM, Mr. Feeback never sent the "FU!" text to the friend for whom it was allegedly intended, as one would expect if a text were inadvertently sent to the wrong person.
- In addition, Mr. Feeback could not explain what the "Believe who and what you want" text would have meant to anyone other than the GM, who had brought up the allegation that Mr. Feeback had bad-mouthed the GM to another employee.
What more did they need? I'd say nothing. You don't have to find an employee "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to fire. If an employer honestly and reasonably believes (even mistakenly) that an employee committed grounds for termination, then that's almost always a defense to a discrimination claim.
Court tosses age discrimination claim
Mr. Feeback sued Swift, his immediate supervisor, and the GM for age discrimination, wrongful discharge, and harassment. A trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The Iowa Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court on the wrongful discharge and harassment claims, but reversed summary judgment on the age discrimination claim. According to the Court of Appeals, a jury would have to decide whether Mr. Feeback sent the "FU!" by mistake. (In addition, Mr. Feeback had evidence that everybody cussed a lot at work and that a lot of older workers had been terminated since 1994.)
But the state Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which resulted in a total win for Swift and the managers. (Even though the age discrimination claim was brought under state law, the Court applied the same principles that would apply under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.)
Regarding the quick investigation, the Supreme Court said, "[The Swift HR Director] did not have much to investigate," discussing the lack of apology or explanation after the "mistake," and the fact that the texts were not re-sent to any "intended" recipient. As the Court noted,
"The question is not whether Feeback sent the texts accidentally; the question is whether [the HR Director] had a good-faith honest belief that Feeback was insubordinate. He did."
Mr. Feeback also argued that his termination for saying "FU!" was bogus because cussing was common at the plant. (In fact, some time before the New Year's Eve incident, the GM had allegedly called Mr. Feeback out of the men's room and told him to stop "f***ing around.") Even so, the Court said,
"Nobody besides Feeback texted 'F*** You!' to the plant manager after a negative performance review. . . . There is a big difference between swearing around the boss and texting 'F*** You!' after he chewed you out. Feeback identified no other Swift employee who committed an offense of comparable seriousness without being terminated."
(Asterisks added. The Court used the complete, capitalized "F" word both times.)
Finally, the Court found that Mr. Feeback's evidence of older employees who were terminated by Swift from 1994 onward was not enough for Mr. Feeback to get to a jury on his age discrimination claim. According to the Court, Mr. Feeback's only real evidence was that the others were terminated when they were older. He apparently had no evidence regarding why they were terminated. And Mr. Feeback didn't offer any expert testimony indicating that the terminations of older workers were statistically significant. On top of that, Swift had evidence that, at the time of Mr. Feeback's termination, it had roughly 100 employees who were 60 or older.
P.S. One more point before I go -- my law partner Ken Carlson asks a great question: "What would the outcome of this case have been under the National Labor Relations Act if Mr. Feeback had not been a supervisor?" I believe the outcome would have been the same. Section 7 of the NLRA prohibits employers from taking action against employees for engaging in "protected concerted activity," which is group action or preparation for group action relating to terms and conditions of employment. (Section 7 doesn't apply to "supervisors" as defined in the law.) In this case, the "FU!" pertained to terms and conditions of employment, but I didn't see any indication that Mr. Feeback was acting as part of a group or preparing for any type of group action. He seemed to be acting only on behalf of himself. Labor lawyers, please feel free to let us know if you disagree.
Image credits: From flickr, Creative Commons license. Downtown Marshalltown by David Wilson, the "Big Pin" by Carl Wykoff, Mayor Pete by Pete For America.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010