Court Opinion

ID: 2963898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:05.74265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:48.026586
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1523

                                  WILLIAM R. LEHMAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Bailey Aldrich,1 Senior Circuit Judge]
                                            ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

               Scott A. Lathrop for appellant.
               ________________
               Alice E. Richmond with whom John Foskett and Deutsch
               _________________           ____________     _______
          Williams Brooks DeRensis Holland & Drachman were on brief for
          ___________________________________________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 22, 1996
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

               1Of the United States Court of Appeals for the First
          Circuit, sitting by designation.

                      CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge.  William R. Lehman,
                                ____________________

            a  former employee  of  the Prudential  Insurance Company  of

            America ("Prudential"),  sued in  the district court  for age

            discrimination  in  violation   of  the  Massachusetts   Fair

            Employment  Practices Act, Mass. Gen.  L. ch. 151B,    4, and

            for pension discrimination in violation of section 510 of the

            Employment  Retirement  Income  Security  Act  ("ERISA"),  29

            U.S.C.     1140.   The  district  court granted  Prudential's

            motion  for  summary  judgment  on  both  counts  and  denied

            plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.  Lehman appealed.  We

            affirm.

                                          I.

                      We summarize the facts in the light most favorable

            to Lehman, the party opposing summary judgment.  Barbour v.
                                                             _______

            Dynamics Research Corp., 63 F.3d 32, 36 (1st Cir. 1995).
            _______________________

                      Prudential hired Lehman in late 1974 to work as a

            brokerage manager for the Greater New York Brokerage Agency. 

            In 1978, Lehman was relocated and promoted to agency manager

            of the brokerage agency in Boston, Massachusetts.  In 1986,

            Prudential expanded the territory of the agency run by

            Lehman, making him director of its New England Brokerage

            Agency which included all of New England except Fairfield

            County in Connecticut.  Even after the expansion, the New

            England agency was relatively small; nevertheless, it

                                         -2-
                                          2

            performed very well under Lehman's direction.  In 1988,

            Prudential created Pru Select, a separate sales division of

            Prudential's life insurance business, to supervise the twelve

            regional brokerage agencies.  Ira Kleinman was appointed

            President of Pru Select, and he hired Roger Dunker as Pru

            Select's Senior Vice President.  Dunker, along with Lehman's

            prior supervisors, gave Lehman glowing performance reviews.

                      Effective January 1, 1990, Pru Select revised its

            pension plan by changing the commencement year for

            calculating average eligible earnings from 1979 to 1983,

            benefitting more senior employees, and by providing a 50%

            annuity to widows without charge to the employee, benefitting

            Lehman whose wife is fifteen years younger than he.  Lehman

            projected the additional cost to Prudential of his pension,

            in light of the above modifications, to be $500,000.

                      Also at that time, Pru Select overhauled and

            streamlined its brokerage agencies.  It consolidated its

            twelve regions and directors into five regions and seven

            directors.  In December of 1990, Dunker told Lehman that as

            of April 1, 1991, his New England office was going to be

            consolidated with the entire New York territory and part of

            the New Jersey territory.  Lehman was to assume the duties

            and compensation scheme of a brokerage manager and report to

            the co-managing directors in the newly created Northeast

            region: Robert Kiley, the pre-consolidation director of the

                                         -3-
                                          3

            New York office, and the newly hired David Dietz.  According

            to Lehman, his income potential as brokerage manager could be

            less than 25% of what it had been as a director.  Lehman was

            instructed to formulate his own unit of brokers in New

            England from whom he could solicit business.  However, he did

            not feel that this was possible, and after several meetings

            in which he attempted to define his new unit, he wrote to

            Dunker stating that the reassignment of his responsibilities

            constituted involuntary termination motivated by age

            discrimination.  Lehman then accepted an early retirement

            package.

                      Before the merger, Lehman, aged 61, directed the

            New England office, and Kiley, aged 57, directed the New York

            office.  After consolidation of the two offices into the new

            Northeast region, the latter was headed jointly by Kiley and

            the 42-year-old Dietz.  According to Lehman, the post-

            consolidation directors had the same responsibilities as the

            pre-consolidation directors, but instead of being

            geographically separated, their responsibilities were now

            more specialized.  The overall results of the various
                               

            regional consolidations were that four of the twelve pre-

            consolidation directors, aged 63, 57, 57, and 42, were

            appointed to director positions.  One of the pre-

            consolidation directors, aged 62, retired.  The remaining

            seven pre-consolidation directors, aged 61 (Lehman), 47, 45,

                                         -4-
                                          4

            45, 45, 41, and 37, were demoted to brokerage managers.  The

            three newly appointed directors were aged 42, 42, and 40.  

                                         II.
                                         II.

                      This court reviews the district court's grant of

            summary judgment de novo.  Goldman v. First Nat'l Bank of
                                       _______    ___________________

            Boston, 985 F.2d 1113, 1116 (1st Cir. 1993).  Summary
            ______

            judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light

            most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows no genuine issue

            of material fact, the moving party being entitled to judgment

            as a matter of law.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);  United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962);  Lareau v. Page, 39
            _____________                             ______    ____

            F.3d 384, 387 (1st Cir. 1994).  "Even in cases where elusive

            concepts such as motive or intent are at issue, summary

            judgment may be appropriate if the nonmoving party rests

            merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences,

            and unsupported speculation."  Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds
                                           ____________    _____________

            Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).
            ___________

                              Age Discrimination Claim 
                              Age Discrimination Claim

                      Lehman alleges that his employer, Prudential,

            unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his age,

            in violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B,   4.1  Under

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The Massachusetts age discrimination statute states in
            relevant part: 

                                         -5-
                                          5

            Massachusetts law, discrimination claims are analyzed and

            reviewed under a three stage order of proof.  See Wheelock
                                                          ___ ________

            College v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 371
            _______    ___________________________________________

            Mass. 130, 355 N.E.2d 309, 313-14 (1976) (citing McDonnell
                                                             _________

            Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)).  The first
            _____________    _____

            stage consists of ascertaining whether the plaintiff has made

            out a prima facie case of discrimination.  If so, the burden

            shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate,

            nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision.  In the

            third stage, the plaintiff must establish either that the

            employer's reason was a pretext or that the actual reason for

            the adverse employment decision was discrimination.2  Blare
                                                                  _____

                                
            ____________________

                      It shall be an unlawful practice: . . .
                      1B.  For an employer in the private
                      sector, by himself or his agent, because
                      of the age of any individual, to refuse
                      to hire or employ or to bar or to
                      discharge from employment such
                      individual, or to discriminate against
                      such individual in compensation or in
                      terms, conditions or privileges of
                      employment, unless based upon a bona fide
                      occupational qualification.  

            Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B,   4.

            2.  In this third stage, the burden on the plaintiff is less
            under Massachusetts law than it is under federal law.  To
            survive summary judgment under federal law, the plaintiff is
            required to show that the employer's reason was pretextual
            and that the actual reason for the adverse employment
            decision was discrimination.  Under Massachusetts law,
            showing that an employer's proffered reason for an adverse
            employment action is merely pretextual is sufficient by
            itself to survive summary judgment.  See Blare, 646 N.E.2d at
                                                 ___ _____
            116-17.

                                         -6-
                                          6

            v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Boston, 419 Mass. 437, 646
               ___________________________________

            N.E.2d 111, 115-17 (1995).  

                      To make out a prima facie case, Lehman had to show

            by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he was a member

            of the protected class;3 (2) he was qualified for the

            position in question; (3) he was denied the position; and (4)

            his employer sought to fill the position by hiring a younger

            individual with qualifications similar to those of the

            plaintiff.4  See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802;  Beal,
                         ___ _________________                    ____

            646 N.E.2d at 136;  Blare, 646 N.E.2d at 115.  "[T]he burden
                                _____

            of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is

            not onerous."  Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
                           ________________________________    _______

                                
            ____________________

            3.  The protected class includes all individuals over forty
            years of age.  Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B,   1(8).

            4.  "[T]he facts necessary to establish a prima facie case of
            discrimination will vary depending on the circumstances of
            each case."  Beal v. Board of Selectmen of Hingham, 419 Mass.
                         ____    _____________________________
            535, 646 N.E.2d 131, 136 (1995).  See also McDonnell Douglas,
                                              ________ _________________
            411 U.S. at 802 n. 13;  Wheelock College, 355 N.E.2d at 313
                                    ________________
            n.5.  Lehman argues that this is a termination case rather
            than a promotion case, and, therefore, he should only be
            required to show that he was performing his job in a
            satisfactory manner and then was replaced by a younger person
            with similar qualifications.  However, the facts of this case
            are more akin to a promotion case than to a termination case. 
            Lehman contends that Prudential should have hired him for the
            newly created co-managing director position of the Northeast
            region.  The elimination of Lehman's position as director of
            the New England region in the consolidation did not entitle
            him to the newly created co-managing director position.  As
            the district court found, the two positions were not
            identical.  The Northeast territory, including New York, New
            Jersey, and most of New England, was much larger than
            Lehman's New England territory.  Moreover, the duties of the
            co-managing directors were more specialized than the duties
            of the pre-consolidation directors had been. 

                                         -7-
                                          7

            450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).  See also Villanueva v. Wellesley
                                       ________ __________    _________

            College, 930 F.2d 124, 127 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S.
            _______                                ____________

            861 (1991).  The district court found that Lehman failed to

            present evidence showing that he was qualified for the

            co-managing director position and that the individual who was

            hired had qualifications similar to his.  The court held,

            therefore, that Lehman had not presented a prima facie case

            against Prudential.  Since we find plaintiff did not meet his

            burden, in the context of summary judgment, of establishing

            pretext, we need not tarry over the prima facie case issue. 

            See Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir.
            ___ ____    _____________________

            1993) (a court of appeals may affirm "on any independently

            sufficient ground made manifest by the record").

                      Even assuming a prima facie case was made, the

            burden shifted to Prudential to provide a legitimate business

            reason for its hiring decision.5  As the district court

            found, Prudential's stated business reason for not hiring

            Lehman as co-managing director was legitimate and non-

            discriminatory; it was also sufficiently supported in the

            record to satisfy the requirements of Massachusetts law.  See
                                                                      ___

            Woods v. Friction Materials, Inc., 30 F.3d 255, 263 (1st Cir.
            _____    ________________________

            1994).  

                                
            ____________________

            5.  This burden is one of production, not persuasion.  The
            burden of proving discrimination remains with the plaintiff
            at all times.  See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253.
                           ___ _______

                                         -8-
                                          8

                      Prudential's asserted reason for hiring Dietz was

            that Dietz's qualifications were more in line with its needs

            than those of Lehman.  See id. at 261.  Kleinman and Dunker
                                   ___ ___

            believed that Dietz would best add the qualities required for

            the Northeast co-managing director position alongside of

            Kiley.  In support of Prudential's asserted reason was a

            considerable body of evidence indicating that Dietz could

            reasonably be regarded as better suited to that position than

            Lehman: (1) Dietz had greater experience in the supervision

            of national marketing efforts; (2) Dietz had greater

            experience in managing large insurance organizations; (3)

            Dietz had greater recognition as a leader in the life

            insurance industry; and (4) Dietz got along better with the

            other co-managing director, Kiley.  Prudential, therefore,

            met its second stage burden.

                      In the third stage, the burden returned to Lehman

            to produce evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict that

            it was more likely than not that (1) Prudential did not offer

            Lehman the position he desired because of his age; or (2)
                                                               __

            Prudential's reason for not offering Lehman that position was

            a "pretext."  See Blare, 646 N.E.2d at 118.  "'[E]vidence
                          ___ _____

            which may be relevant to the plaintiff's showing of pretext

            may include application of a certain criterion to employees

            [not within the protected category]; the employer's general

            practice and policies concerning employment of [those within

                                         -9-
                                          9

            the protected category]; and the employer's treatment of the

            plaintiff during [his] employment.'"  Id. (quoting Lewis v.
                                                  ___          _____

            Area II Homecare for Senior Citizens, Inc., 397 Mass. 761,
            __________________________________________

            493 N.E.2d 867, 872 (1986) (alterations in original)). 

                      Attempting to show that Prudential's reason was

            pretextual, Lehman pointed out that Dietz, the individual

            offered the co-managing director position in the Northeast

            region, was younger than he, and that the previous New

            England agency had performed consistently well under Lehman's

            leadership.6  However, the fact that Lehman had been

            successfully directing the New England agency was

            insufficient, by itself, to show that Prudential's reason for

            hiring Dietz was pretextual.  As already described, Dietz had

            important qualifications of his own that could reasonably

            lead to the belief that he was superior to Lehman for this

            job.  The position of co-managing director of the large,

            reorganized Northeast region involved different

            responsibilities and could reasonably be thought to require a

            different blend of talents than those required for solo

            management of the smaller New England office.  

                                
            ____________________

            6.  To demonstrate that the New England agency was successful
            under his leadership, Lehman reports that (1) since 1986 the
            New England agency was consistently in the top 40% of all
            agencies; (2) the agency had very good policy persistency and
            very low expenses; (3) he had hired and trained six brokerage
            managers in New England; and (4) he had solicited work from
            brokerage general agencies.

                                         -10-
                                          10

                      It is undisputed that several of the pre-

            consolidation directors were promoted and several were not,

            and their relative ages and performance records do not

            suggest that those decisions were aged-based.  The average

            age of pre-consolidation directors appointed to be post-

            consolidation directors was older than the average age of

            those pre-consolidation directors, including Lehman, who were

            not appointed.7  Lehman was treated the same as the other

            six directors, all under 50, who were not promoted.  We

            refuse to second guess Prudential's hiring decision for a

            management position of this nature absent clearer evidence of

            irrationality.  See Villanueva, 930 F.2d at 129;  Odom v.
                            ___ __________                    ____

            Frank, 3 F.3d 839, 847 (5th Cir. 1993) ("[U]nless disparities
            _____

            in curricula vitae are so apparent as virtually to jump off

            the page and slap us in the face, we judges should be

            reluctant to substitute our views for those of the

            individuals charged with the evaluation duty by virtue of

            their own years of experience and expertise in the field in

            question").

                                
            ____________________

            7.  The average age of the four pre-consolidation directors
            appointed to post-consolidation director positions was 55
            years, while the average age of the seven pre-consolidation
            directors (including Lehman) not appointed to director
            positions was 46 years. 
                 Including the three newly hired directors in the
            analysis does not change the result.  The average age of the
            seven post-consolidation directors was 49 years, while the
            average age of the seven pre-consolidation directors not
            promoted was 46 years.

                                         -11-
                                          11

                      In addition to attempting to show Prudential's

            reason pretextual, Lehman provided what he considers indirect

            evidence of age discrimination.  Lehman pointed to a

            statement made during the May 1990 Directors' Meeting, while

            Kleinman was explaining changes in the expense formula used

            to calculate agency profitability.  Kleinman stated that the

            previous expense component representing benefits was 31% of

            all compensation paid to employees and added that using 31%

            "was a gift" because of "the age of some of the Directors." 

            Contrary to Lehman's allegations, this statement does not

            show animus based on age, but rather merely states that the

            formula that had been employed was favorable to older

            directors and points out that the use of actual costs under

            the modified method might result in higher assessments.  This

            statement -- which did not mention Lehman, and in no way

            indicated that older directors were lacking in competence --

            provides insufficient basis for an inference that Prudential

            did not offer Lehman the position he wanted because of his

            age.8  Isolated, ambiguous remarks are insufficient, by

            themselves, to prove discriminatory intent.  See Gagne v.
                                                         ___ _____

            Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co., 881 F.2d 309, 314 (6th Cir.
            ___________________________

                                
            ____________________

            8.  Unlike remarks made in Blare by a supervisor, Kleinman's
                                       _____
            comment could not reasonably be construed to reveal a belief
            that Lehman lacked the ability to perform well because of his
            age.  See Blare, 646 N.E.2d at 118. 
                  ___ _____

                                         -12-
                                          12

            1989);  cf. Leichihman v. Pickwick Int'l, 814 F.2d 1263, 1271
                    ___ __________    ______________

            (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 855 (1987). 
                        ____________

                      Lehman also pointed to a photostat entitled

            "Organizational Man, New Manager."  The photostat came from a

            presentation to Prudential's Individual Insurance Business

            Unit by a business consultant, Dr. Paul Lienberger.  Dr.

            Lienberger discussed the need to adapt products and marketing

            to demographic changes in the marketplace. One of several

            slides shown by Dr. Lienberger depicted the "Organizational

            Man" of the "Ozzie and Harriet" generation as being

            pessimistic, being cautious, being oriented to bureaucracies,

            and having a 30-year career plan; in contrast, the "New

            Manager" of the "Kuzak & Gracie of L.A. Law" generation was

            depicted as risk taking, optimistic, well educated and

            hardworking.  Dunker, who had attended Dr. Lienberger's

            presentation, decided to include a videotape of the

            presentation and photostats of the slides as part of a

            discussion in the November 1990 Directors' Meeting.  Due to

            time constraints, the videotape was not shown; nonetheless,

            the directors, including Lehman, received a copy of the

            photostats.  Lehman argued that the comparisons made on the

            "Organizational Man" photostat indicated an age-stereotyped

            mentality.  However, we think it too long a stretch to

            interpret a photostat generated by a marketing consultant in

            an entirely different context as indicating that Prudential

                                         -13-
                                          13

            was biased when placing its older brokerage employees.  There

            is no evidence in the record before us that the photostat and

            its context had any relation to the decision of whom to hire

            as co-managing brokerage directors.  We conclude that

            Lehman's evidence, taken at its best, was insufficient to

            show that, in not appointing Lehman to the co-managing

            director position, Prudential was motivated by age

            discrimination or that its asserted reason for not appointing

            him was pretextual.

                         Pension Discrimination Claim (ERISA)
                         Pension Discrimination Claim (ERISA)

                      Lehman's second claim against Prudential was for

            unlawful pension discrimination in violation of section 510

            of ERISA.  29 U.S.C.   1140.9  Lehman alleged that

            Prudential hired a younger person for the co-managing

            director position to avoid the high cost of funding his

            pension.  This circuit, along with most others, analyzes

                                
            ____________________

            9.  Section 510 of ERISA provides that it is unlawful for:

                      any person to discharge, fine, suspend,
                      expel, discipline, or discriminate
                      against a participant or beneficiary for
                      exercising any right to which he is
                      entitled under the provisions of an
                      employee benefit plan . . . for the
                      purpose of interfering with the
                      attainment of any right to which such
                      participant may become entitled under the
                      plan.

            29 U.S.C.   1140.

                                         -14-
                                          14

            ERISA discrimination claims under the same three stage

            burden-shifting paradigm described above.  Barbour v.
                                                       _______

            Dynamics Research Corp., 63 F.3d 32, 37-38 (1st Cir. 1995)
            _______________________

            (collecting cases).  In the first stage, Lehman must set

            forth a prima facie case by demonstrating that: (1) he had

            the opportunity to attain rights under an ERISA benefit plan;

            (2) he was qualified for the position at issue; and (3) he

            was subjected to adverse action under circumstances that give

            rise to an inference of discrimination.  Id. at 38.  We again
                                                     ___

            assume arguendo, without deciding, that Lehman set forth a
                   ________

            prima facie case.  

                      To dispel the inference of discrimination arising

            from a prima facie case, Prudential must only articulate, it

            need not prove, a non-discriminatory reason for its hiring

            decision.  Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108,
                       ______    _______________________

            1115 (2nd Cir. 1988).  Lehman conceded that Prudential

            "articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its

            action . . . [namely] that it selected Dietz instead of

            Lehman for the position of co-Managing Director because of

            Dietz' supposedly superior qualifications for the position." 

                      At the third stage, Lehman must show that

            Prudential was motivated by "the specific intent of

            interfering with the employee's ERISA benefits."  Barbour, 63
                                                              _______

            F.3d at 37.  See also McGann v. H & H Music Co., 946 F.2d
                         ________ ______    _______________

            401, 404 (5th Cir. 1991);  Dister, 859 F.2d at 1111; Gavalik
                                       ______                    _______

                                         -15-
                                          15

            v. Continental Can Co., 812 F.2d 834, 851 (3rd Cir.), cert.
               ___________________                                _____

            denied, 484 U.S. 979 (1987).  ERISA provides no relief if the
            ______

            loss of an employee's benefits was incidental to, and not the

            reason for, the adverse employment action.  Were this not so,

            every discharged employee who had been a member of a benefit

            plan would have a potential cause of action against his or

            her former employer under ERISA.  Barbour, 63 F.3d at 37; 
                                              _______

            see also Dister, 859 F.2d at 1111.  To demonstrate that
            ________ ______

            Prudential acted with the specific intention of interfering

            with Lehman's ERISA benefits, Lehman must show "(1) that

            [Prudential's] articulated reason for its employment actions

            was a pretext; and (2) that the true reason was to interfere
                           ___

            with [Lehman's] receipt of benefits."  Barbour, 63 F.3d at 39
                                                   _______

            (emphasis added).  On this record, we find no genuine issue

            of fact either that Prudential was motivated by a

            discriminatory purpose or that Prudential's reason for not

            hiring Lehman co-managing director was not credible. 

                      Effective January 1, 1990, Prudential made

            adjustments to its company-wide pension plan which Lehman

            estimates increased Prudential's cost of funding his pension

            by about $500,000 over time.  Lehman contends that Prudential

            was aware of the high cost of his benefits10 and refused to

            offer him the co-managing director position in an effort to

                                
            ____________________

            10.  Lehman points out that Prudential discovered an "expense
            gap" when it was first required to calculate age-related
            costs for certain pension plans.  

                                         -16-
                                          16

            reduce this cost (pension benefit obligations being lesser

            for younger people).  Lehman again points to Kleinman's

            statement that benefits actually cost more than they had been

            estimating because of "the age of some of the Directors."   

                      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

            Lehman, we find nothing that would cause a reasonable fact-

            finder to doubt Prudential's explanation for its hiring

            decision.  Prudential's mere awareness of the high cost of

            pension obligations combined with the single isolated

            ambiguous remark by Kleinman were insufficient, by

            themselves, to establish Prudential's discriminatory intent. 

            Lehman did not contradict deposition testimony that

            Prudential's benefit costs were calculated on a company-wide

            basis, and that Pru Select's top management, who made the

            hiring decision, received no individual employee calculation

            of pension costs.  Nor did Lehman contradict deposition

            testimony that Prudential did not have knowledge of his

            wife's age, knowledge that would be necessary to compute his

            pension obligation.  No material connection appears between

            the cost of funding Lehman's pension and Prudential's

            decision to hire Dietz rather than Lehman.  We are satisfied

            that the record would not support a finding that Prudential

            did not hire Lehman as co-managing director because of the

            cost of funding his pension.  

                                         -17-
                                          17

            Affirmed.  Costs to Appellee.
            Affirmed.  Costs to Appellee.
            ________

                                         -18-
                                          18