Opinion ID: 217650
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: October 23, 2007 Incident

Text: On October 23, 2007, Leach, who was 61, forwarded a chain email to other State Farm employees relating to the “war on terror.” After an email recipient complained, Supervisor Anderson sent Leach an email reminding him that forwarding chain emails was a violation of the code of conduct. Leach responded that the situation was “unbelievable,” explained that the chain email was an inspiration and denied violating State Farm’s code of conduct. Leach told 2 Supervisor Anderson to forward Leach’s response to Claims Section Manager Jay Miller or anyone else appropriate. What happened next is disputed. According to Supervisor Anderson, shortly after Leach sent his email response, Leach walked by Anderson’s office, appeared “extremely angry and aggressive,” and told Anderson that he could “shove that up [his] ass.” When Supervisor Anderson tried to follow Leach into his office to talk to him, Leach responded that he did not want to talk to him and accused Anderson of harassing him. Leach denied making this statement to Anderson. Later that day, Supervisor Anderson sent Leach home without pay. According to Leach, Anderson told him he could resign, retire, go home without pay or they could talk. When Leach refused to talk, Anderson told him to leave the office. Shortly afterward, Anderson reported the interaction to his supervisor, David Turner, State Farm’s Counsel, and advised that he had sent Leach home without pay. B. Leach Placed on Leave Pending Investigation of October 23 Incident The next day (October 24), Plaintiff Leach informed Turner that he intended to take early retirement effective November 7, 2007, the date of his wife’s scheduled surgery. 3 However, Leach and his wife were concerned that they would lose their health insurance. On October 29, 2007, Leach sent an email to Turner asking to withdraw his retirement notice. On October 30, Turner accepted the withdrawal and notified Leach he would remain on company-initiated paid leave pending an investigation of the October 23 incident. According to Leach, someone in human resources advised him that he was placed on family medical leave as of October 29, 2007. C. Turner’s Investigation As part of his investigation, Turner asked Anderson to prepare a chronology of Leach’s performance issues, which Anderson provided to Turner on October 30. Anderson’s chronology recounted incidents from 2005 to 2007 in which Leach was counseled for being unprofessional to opposing counsel, insubordinate to Anderson or hostile to criticism from other State Farm employees. The chronology documented that some of Anderson’s performance evaluations had noted Anderson’s need to improve his “people skills” and his relationships with other State Farm employees.1 The chronology included a summary of Anderson’s 1 Among other things, Anderson’s chronology discussed: (1) a complaint Anderson received in March 2005 from opposing counsel in one of Leach’s cases about inappropriate and profane comments Leach had made; (2) Leach’s antagonistic response when a State Farm Auto Claims employee voiced dissatisfaction with his handling of her files in October 2005; (3) a July 2006 formal performance counseling based on Leach’s initial hostile reaction when Anderson solicited comments from the Auto Claims Department about Leach’s work; (4) Leach’s 4 version of the October 23, 2007 incident, but did not make any recommendations as to discipline. On November 2, 2007, Turner and a human resources representative spoke to Leach by phone to hear his version of the October 23 incident. Leach acknowledged that he probably should not have sent the chain email, but denied passing Anderson’s office or making any comment to him. Leach advised Turner of his wife’s upcoming surgery and stated that he was also suffering from some medical issues. On November 12, 2007, Turner submitted his findings to Dean Davis, State Farm’s Associate General Counsel. Turner concluded that Leach’s version of events was not credible, noting that Leach had been counseled multiple times in the past for insubordination, incivility and lack of professionalism. Turner recommended that Leach be terminated. Because Leach had requested leave to care for his wife, Turner, however, recommended that State Farm “grant him the full allotment of his time off under State Farm’s policy for that purpose, and place “resentment and anger” when Anderson intervened over Leach’s secretary’s work load; (5) Leach’s June 23, 2006 response to Anderson’s feedback about Leach’s writing in which Leach stated that he was “writing a thesis and Doctoral dissertation when [Anderson was] in Junior High” and that Anderson should “[l]ook up micromanagement and study its effect on the work environment, please”; and (6) an August 2007 complaint from opposing counsel about Leach’s lack of civility during a deposition and a scene inspection. 5 him in an unpaid leave status, making his effective date of termination February 29, 2008.” Turner noted that Leach’s termination date could be adjusted if Leach did not require the additional medical leave. D. Leach’s Termination Associate General Counsel Davis decided that Leach’s actions, combined with past counselings for incivility, warranted termination. Davis considered Turner’s recommendation and the documentation relating to the October 23 incident and Leach’s general performance. Davis agreed with Turner’s recommendation to provide Leach with unpaid leave from November 24, 2007 through February 29, 2008, amounting to a total of fourteen weeks, so that Leach could remain on State Farm’s health insurance. On November 12, 2007, Leach’s attorney sent State Farm a letter alleging that Leach was being terminated because of his age and suggesting a settlement. Leach’s attorney advised that he was authorized to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC if they were unable to reach an amicable resolution. On November 20, Leach received a termination letter from Turner advising him that: (1) his employment was being terminated effective February 29, 2008; and (2) he would be placed on unpaid leave of absence from November 24, 2007, until February 29, 2008, so that he could continue his medical insurance coverage 6 and retire on March 1, 2008. Turner’s letter explained that Leach was being terminated for “insubordination . . . directed toward [Anderson] on October 23, concerning [his] transmission of an inappropriate email, [his] prior acts of incivility and unprofessionalism toward co-workers, Claims Department employees, and opposing counsel, as well as prior insubordination toward [Anderson].” E. Leach’s New Employment On December 18, 2007, Leach accepted a position in Liberty Mutual’s claims litigation office. On that same day, Leach emailed State Farm that he would retire effective January 1, 2008. Leach began working for Liberty Mutual on January 2, 2008. F. Leach’s EEOC Charge On August 27, 2008, Leach filed a charge of age discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC dismissed the charge as untimely. According to Leach, he first only suspected his termination was based on his age due to ageist comments Anderson made. When Leach learned in spring 2008 that State Farm had hired a woman in her 20s to replace him, his suspicions were confirmed. E. District Court Proceedings 7 Leach filed this action in district court, alleging that State Farm terminated him because of his age and in retaliation for his opposition to its age discrimination and interfered with and retaliated against him for taking FMLA leave. The district court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Specifically, the district court concluded that: (1) the ADEA discrimination and retaliation claims were untimely; (2) Leach abandoned the ADEA retaliation claim and, in any event, Leach had not shown evidence of retaliatory animus; (3) Leach had not shown that State Farm interfered with his FMLA leave and extinguished his right to reinstatement or restoration by retiring and accepting other employment; and (4) Leach failed to show that State Farm’s reason for his termination was pretextual, as he received the medical leave and submitted no evidence of retaliatory influence. Leach filed this appeal.2