Court Opinion

ID: 9930707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 16:05:18.292758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:22.772405
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                            PRESIDIO, INC.,
                              Appellant,

                                    v.

                             BRIAN FEENY,
                               Appellee.

                            No. 4D2023-0045

                           [February 7, 2024]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Gerard Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case No.
502020CA002320.

   Marie A. Borland and S. Gordon Hill, Jr., of Hill, Ward & Henderson,
P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

  Gabriel “Gabe” T. Roberts and Cathleen Scott of Scott Law Team,
Jupiter, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   Presidio, Inc., appeals the circuit court’s order granting Brian Feeny’s
motion for summary judgment. The circuit court concluded that Presidio
breached its contract with Feeny when it failed to pay Feeny, a former
employee, a bonus for fiscal year 2018.

                             i. Background

   Feeny worked for Presidio, Inc. from March 1, 2015, to October 29,
2019, as the Senior Director of Data Analytics in the IOT department.
While employed, a Company Performance Plan governed Feeny’s
compensation. Presidio’s employee performance plans were determined
from a budget set by Presidio’s Board of Directors, which was then passed
on to each business unit responsible for setting its objectives. The plans
changed yearly.

   As in prior years, Feeny signed the plan in 2018. The 2018 document
stated, in part:
      This document summarizes the Performance Plan for the Sr.
      Director of Data Analytics objectives starting FY18. It is
      provided to clarify both the Individual’s objectives as well as
      the incentive plan associated with meeting these objectives.
      All objectives are provided on a yearly basis unless otherwise
      specified. All Performance end Bonus plans are discretionary
      and subject to change based on individual or corporate
      performance.

   In 2018, Presidio paid Feeny a $30,000 bonus. Since the IOT
department met its objectives, Feeny expected an additional $68,250.
When Presidio did not pay the additional $68,250, citing poor company
performance, Feeny sued Presidio for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

   Presidio moved to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment.
Focusing on the Plan’s language that all bonuses were “discretionary,”
Presidio argued the Plan was an illusory promise and not an enforceable
contract. Presidio acknowledged the IOT met its objectives but stated that,
as a whole, the company underperformed in 2018. Based on this
underperformance, “Presidio . . . cut bonuses for . . . employees [across]
the company.”

   Feeny also moved for summary judgment. He argued that Presidio’s
interpretation of the Plan ignored mandatory language stating, “the
Annual Incentive will be paid out based on meeting the following
objectives.”

   Finding the Plan was an enforceable contract, the circuit court agreed
with Feeny and granted summary judgment.

                               ii. Analysis

   On appeal, Presidio relies on the 2018 plan’s discretionary language to
argue it was within its right to withhold the additional monies based on
the company’s underperformance. Feeny responds the 2018 plan was an
enforceable contract and his bonus vested once he satisfied the 2018
plan’s metrics.

    “An adequately pled breach of contract action requires three elements:
(1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages.” Friedman v.
New York Life Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citations
omitted). To show the contract existed, there must be: “(1) [an] offer; (2)
acceptance; (3) consideration; and (4) sufficient specification of the

                                    2
essential terms.” Uphoff v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, No. 09-80420-CIV, 2009
WL 5031345, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2009) (quoting Vega v. T-Mobile USA,
Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1272 (11th Cir. 2009)). Whether a bonus plan is a
contract creating contractual obligations requires a similar analysis.
Generally, however, these types of incentive plans do not rise to the level
of an enforceable contract.

   An incentive that is vague, indefinite, or otherwise incalculable
suggests a discretionary bonus. For example, in Rionda v. HSBC Bank
U.S.A., N.A., No. 10-20654-CIV, 2010 WL 5476725, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec.
30, 2010), an employee was terminated before receiving his bonus. The
bonus policy stated, in part, that “[a]ll bonuses are strictly discretionary
and may be awarded or not awarded at the sole discretion of the
Company.” Id. The court noted that “[f]or a contract to be enforceable,
the parties’ purported agreement must evidence a meeting of the minds
regarding the essential terms of the contract.” Id. at *8 (citations omitted).
Because the bonus amount was not discussed, the court concluded an
essential element of a contract was missing. Id. Furthermore, the
compensation policy expressly stated that bonuses were “strictly
discretionary,” and the company reserved the right to “add, amend, or
discontinue . . . all salary administration programs . . . including . . .
bonuses.” Id.

    Similarly, in Parrish v. General Motors Corp., 137 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1962), the employee’s bonus plan included discretionary language in
multiple sections of the plan. Id. at 256–57. The company retained “[f]ull
power and authority to construe, interpret and administer this plan” and
had “discretion with respect to the determination of each bonus award.”
Id. at 256. The Second District concluded that the bonus plan “partakes
of gratuity while lacking essential elements of contractual obligation.” Id.
at 258. Furthermore, “[u]nder said plan an employee is at all times
charged with knowledge that a bonus award may be granted or withheld
as to any employee at the discretion of the employer.” Id.

   In this case, Feeny’s performance plan contained a number and
methodology to calculate his bonus amount. As such, the bonus was not
vague and incalculable. See Rionda, 2010 WL 5476725, at *1. However,
Feeny’s Plan lacked any indication that it was meant to be part of his
employment agreement. See OneSource Facility Servs., Inc. v. Mosbach,
508 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1123–24 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (emphasizing the
document’s discretionary language and concluding it did not include
language showing it was intended to be part of the plaintiff’s employment
agreement). The Plan included discretionary language conditioning the
bonus on individual and company performance. See Rustand v. Verizon

                                      3
Bus. Network Servs. LLC, No. 21-CV-1518, 2022 WL 15523060, at *2–3
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2022) (finding no contract existed because the plans
did not contain language showing they constituted binding employment
contracts, “expressly disavow[ed] any guarantee of” compensation or
benefits, and the company retained the discretion “to change or
discontinue the [p]lans at any time”) (internal quotations omitted).

   In sum, Presidio retained the right to change the bonus plan at its
discretion and, importantly, based on corporate performance. As a result,
Feeny’s bonus was discretionary, and the court erred when it entered
summary judgment in Feeny’s favor.

                               iii. Conclusion

   The circuit court’s final summary judgment is reversed, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings.

   Reversed and remanded.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

                           *         *           *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     4