United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W.
Keith Watkins United States District Judge.
Wanda
Jurriaans worked for the Alabama Cooperative Extension System
(ACES) for fifty-one years. But after a complaint from a
local government official, ACES investigated Jurriaans and
concluded that she had “seriously strained”
relationships with government officials and her colleagues.
This came on the heels of a performance evaluation that
criticized her for “inconsistent” performance and
leadership. ACES fired Jurriaans and replaced her with a man
in his fifties. Jurriaans claims she is a victim of age
discrimination and retaliation. But no reasonable jury could
find that the reasons for firing her are pretextual, so
Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 77) is
due to be granted.
I.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The
court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or
venue.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To
succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party
must show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The court views the
evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn from it, in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th
Cir. 2010).
A party
seeking summary judgment “always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for the motion.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This responsibility includes
identifying the parts of the record that show there is no
genuine dispute of material fact. A movant who does not bear
a trial burden of production may also assert, without citing
the record, that the nonmoving party “cannot produce
admissible evidence to support” a material fact.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B). If the moving party meets its
burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present
evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact. A genuine
dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party
produces evidence allowing a reasonable fact-finder to return
a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental
Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
III.
FACTS
Wanda
Jurriaans was born in 1942. She worked for ACES from 1965
until she was fired in 2016. Defendants say that Jurriaans
lost her job because she strained relationships with
government officials, did not get along with her colleagues,
and did not consistently meet expectations. Are those the
real reasons, or are they pretext for discrimination and
retaliation? Answering those questions require understanding
how ACES works and what happened during Jurriaans's last
year-and-a-half with ACES.
A.
The Alabama Cooperative Extension System
ACES is
a partnership between Alabama A&M University and Auburn
University. It exists to deliver “research-based
educational programs that enable people to improve their
quality of life and economic well-being.” (Doc. # 79-3,
at 47-48.) In other words, ACES diffuses into the community
what researchers learn at Auburn and Alabama A&M. It
works in urban and rural areas, providing “useful and
practical information on subjects relating to agriculture,
forestry and natural resources, family and individual
well-being, youth development, community and economic
development, and other areas.” Act of Aug. 2, 2005, No.
304, § 1, 2005 Ala. Laws 607, 609 (codified at Ala. Code
§ 2-30-2).
Auburn
and Alabama A&M jointly administer ACES. Auburn appoints
an Extension Director, while Alabama A&M appoints an
Extension Administrator. The Extension Director and Extension
Administrator cooperate to ensure ACES's statewide
success, but they separately monitor the work done at their
respective schools. Each has an Associate Director as his or
her second-in-command. (Doc. # 79-3, at 55, 58.) Defendant
Gary Lemme has been the Extension Director since 2011.
Defendant Paul Brown has been the Associate Director at
Auburn since 2009. (Doc. # 79-6, at 4; Doc. # 79-5, at 4.)
Lemme
and Brown supervise a team of Assistant
Directors.[1] Most Assistant Directors are responsible
for programs in certain content areas. For example, there is
an Assistant Director for 4-H programs, another for
agriculture and forestry programs, and another for family and
consumer sciences programs. These program-focused Assistant
Directors oversee Regional Extension Agents (REAs). REAs work
in designated geographical regions in Alabama, and they work
on programs in their content area. (Doc. # 79-3, at 60, 66.)
Defendant Kyle Kostelecky was the Assistant Director for
Family and Consumer Sciences in 2015 and 2016, though he no
longer works for ACES. His office was at Auburn University.
(Doc. # 79-8, at 12, 20.)
ACES
keeps an office in each of Alabama's sixty-seven counties
because it is “committed to maintaining a strong local
presence” in each county. (Doc. # 79-3, at 51.) Each
office is led by a County Extension Coordinator (CEC), who
serves as the “principal community liaison.”
(Doc. # 79-3, at 51.) CECs are thus responsible for arranging
and coordinating programs in their counties, building and
strengthening relationships with stakeholders, and leading
their offices. (Doc. # 79-3, at 51, 67.) CECs must know the
needs in their counties and implement programs accordingly.
They are the “primary contact” for local
government officials, and securing funding from local
government is a key part of their job (as is applying for
grants from other sources). (Doc. # 79-3, at 51, 104.) CECs
work with REAs, but neither works for the other. CECs report
to the Assistant Director for County Office Operations - a
post held by Defendant Stanley Windham at all times relevant
to this lawsuit. (Doc. # 79-3, at 6, 61, 104.) Windham's
office is at Auburn University, though the sixty-seven CECs
he supervises are scattered across the state. (Doc. # 79-5,
at 17, 31.)
B.
Wanda Jurriaans's Employment
Jurriaans
joined ACES after she graduated from college. From 1965 to
1990, she worked on home economics, nutrition, and 4-H
projects. Then in 1990, she became the County Extension
Coordinator for Talladega County. (Doc. # 79-4, at 35-38.) At
first, Jurriaans was successful as a CEC. But this case is
about her more recent performance.
1.
Jurriaans's 2014 performance evaluation criticized
her leadership and communication
skills.
Every
year, Windham gives a written performance evaluation to each
CEC. In February 2015, Windham gave Jurriaans her review for
the 2014 calendar year. He rated her overall performance as a
3 out of 5, meaning her work was “satisfactory and
effective in meeting expected levels of
performance.”[2] (Doc. # 79-1, at 15.) He included positive
comments, opining that she was “quite innovative,
” was “diligent to seek input, ” would
“foster programming, ” was “very responsive
to clientele needs and requests, ” and had “a
good view and understanding of what would make Talladega
County a better place to work and live.” (Doc. # 79-1,
at 14-15.) He noticed that Jurriaans was a disciplined and
detail-focused employee who used her experience to build
programs. (Doc. # 79-1, at 7-8.) And Windham said she was
“very willing to be a team player and support team
projects.” (Doc. # 79-1, at 12.)
But
Jurriaans's 2014 evaluation was not all roses. Six weeks
before he gave Jurriaans her evaluation, Windham learned that
an ACES employee had gone to the Clay County CEC “on
numerous occasions in tears or nearly in tears, exasperated
about the working environment in Talladega County.”
(Doc. # 79-1, at 17; see Doc. # 87-6, at 6.) And in
the evaluation, Windham criticized Jurriaans's leadership
and communication style. He told her to soften her tone and
to be more supportive of less-experienced employees:
• “Wanda has a wealth of experience and as the
front line supervisor for the Talladega County Office - has
an opportunity to mentor agents and others to a high level.
One item that would help this cause is to be mindful of
approach to people - stay positive as much as possible - as
she works with all employees.” (Doc. # 79-1, at 7.)
• “Wanda is very willing to be a team player and
support team projects. This area would be enhanced by
reaching out to internal and external entities and making
this better known to those serving and supporting her
office.” (Doc. # 79-1, at 12.)
• “She . . . could soften her verbal and
managerial approach particularly with . . . ACES employees.
She could attain the same results by utilizing her vast
experience and ideas and reaching out to employees with a
more supportive approach. In her mind she is meeting needs
and she does many times - however approach is everything as
we build relationships with those we supervise and work
with.” (Doc. # 79-1, at 13.)
• “[Effective communication] would be enhanced by
being careful to control especially verbal approach to mainly
ACES employees. Her intent is good - verbal delivery could be
more productive.” (Doc. # 79-1, at 14.)
In
general, Windham suggested that Jurriaans work on
“utilizing her experience to a higher level” and
“communicating with and mentoring younger agents in a
more nurturing fashion.” (Doc. # 79-1, at 15.)
While
he gave them less attention, Windham noted two other areas of
concern in Jurriaans's 2014 evaluation. One was that
funding from Talladega County “could possibly
increase.” (Doc. # 79-1, at 10.) The other concern was
“collegiality issues” in the local 4-H program.
(Doc. # 79-1, at 11.) Windham did not pin all the blame on
Jurriaans, and he recognized that Jurriaans “worked to
resolve” the collegiality issues, but he still
mentioned them. (Doc. # 79-1, at 11.)
2.
Jurriaans was invited to a meeting about planning for
retirement.
Now
fast-forward six months. In August 2015, CECs from across the
state met for a two-day professional development workshop.
One of the programs at the workshop was an after-dinner
meeting about planning for retirement. Attendance was
optional; CECs could go home early rather than sit through
the meeting. But Gary Lemme, the Extension Director, wanted
people to attend. He testified that he “made a general
announcement” to “everybody” and went to
“every table” inviting CECs. (Doc. # 79-6, at 7.)
And Lemme states that “a wide spectrum of ages of
experienced people” stayed for the meeting. (Doc. #
79-6, at 8.)
Jurriaans
says that Lemme invited her four times and was
“adamant” that she attend. After Lemme's
second invitation, she told him, “I may want to work
until I die.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 41; Doc. # 87-11, at 3.)
Jurriaans also asserts that Lemme made no announcement at her
table, but she admits that she does not know who all Lemme
invited. (Doc. # 79-4, at 41; Doc. # 87-6, at 2.) Jurriaans
also thought that Lemme was encouraging her to retire, but
she does not identify a direct statement to that
effect.[3] Both Lemme and Jurriaans went to the
meeting. (Doc. # 79-4, at 41.)
3.
Jurriaans's 2015 evaluation criticized her for
inconsistent leadership,
communication, county engagement, and 4-H
programs.
Now
fast-forward again, this time to January 2016. That is when
Windham gave Jurriaans her 2015 performance evaluation. He
rated her overall performance as a 2 out of 5, meaning that
she was “inconsistent in meeting established standards
of performance.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 67.) Windham gave
Jurriaans high marks for civil rights compliance, securing
grant funding, grassroots organization, and more. But, as in
2014, Windham criticized Jurriaans's leadership and
communication skills, as well as what he said was a failure
to promote “new and innovative” programs. In
making his critiques, Windham referenced Jurriaans's
“experience.” For example:
• “One area that needs improvement is Office
Culture. Given her experience and abilities to foster
positive and highly functioning programs, the overall feeling
and attitude of the local office is below basic
standards.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 69.)
• “There is a feeling by many serving this office
that they must struggle to get things done in this County
because of Wanda. She needs to be proactive to change this
perception.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 69.)
• “Given her abilities, experience, and knowledge
- she could mentor, lead, and foster most any program and
effort that is appropriate to ACES' mission. Further, she
could be an excellent asset to less seasoned employees and
those struggling with various areas of their job. This has
not happened however to an appropriate level that is becoming
of her experience and abilities.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 68.)
• “It appears she many times is difficult to deal
with on projects she does not embrace, lacks an embracing
nature related to innovation in some projects, and thus is
not as impactful in her County to the level you would expect
for someone with her skills and knowledge.” (Doc. #
79-4, at 68.)
• “She and I on many occasions have discussed her
need to utilize [her talent and experience] to help and
mentor less experienced colleagues. This has not occurred to
the level that it could. . . . A few suggestions would
involve a positive approach and willing hand when approached
related to programming. In addition, praise and constructive
guidance would go a long way towards helping less seasoned
professionals feel more confident and willing to be housed
and work in her County.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 71.)
• “Given her [position and experience], she is not
as catalytic in fostering or embracing new and innovative
programming, as much as she could be given her level of
experience.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 72.)
• “Basic improvement could be attained thru an
open and proactive willingness to work with all ACES
personnel in a mentoring and nurturing fashion, sustain
traditional and proven programming while being willing to try
new/innovative programming efforts, and be mindful that
proving impact to County citizens and stakeholders will
enhance her image, success, and consequently the success and
image of ACES in Talladega County.” (Doc. # 79-4, at
68.)
Windham
also critiqued Jurriaans's relationship with Talladega
County. He noted that though the county seemed financially
sound, it had not increased funding to ACES in years. He also
pointed out that ACES used less office space in the county
building than it had in the past. He said these failures to
expand reflected “some level of disconnect”
between ACES and the county. (Doc. # 79-4, at
70.)[4]
Finally,
Windham expressed concern about 4-H programs. 4-H membership
had declined, and Windham noted apparent “issues”
between Jurriaans and the local 4-H REA, Kim Good. (Doc. #
79-4, at 77.) Windham opined that Jurriaans did not fully
embrace “innovative and new programming
approaches.” (Doc. # 79-4, at 77.)[5]
Jurriaans
tried to appeal this evaluation. (Doc. # 79-3, at 155-56.)
According to ACES administrators, there is no formal appeals
process for annual evaluations. (Doc. # 79-3, at 15, 147;
Doc. # 79-5, at 29; Doc. # 79-6, at 12). Still, Windham let
Jurriaans attach comments to the evaluation. (Doc. # 79-3, at
147-50.) Windham also told Jurriaans that he would help her
improve. (Doc. # 79-1, at 3; Doc. # 79-3, at 147.)
In
March 2016, Jurriaans met with Associate Director Paul Brown
to discuss her objections to her 2015 evaluation. Jurriaans
gave Brown a written rebuttal to the evaluation (see
Doc. # 79-3, at 149-50), and Brown agreed to attach that
rebuttal to the evaluation (Doc. # 79-5, at 14-15). But Brown
concurred with Windham's assessment, asserting that
Jurriaans's performance was subpar given her experience
as a CEC. In his deposition, Brown opined that Jurriaans did
not go beyond the basics in some projects. He stated that
there was a history of people not wanting to work with
Jurriaans. (Doc. # 79-5, at 16-17.) Finally, he said that her
approach to 4-H programs was “elementary” and
that she did not work well with the local 4-H REA, Kim Good.
(Doc. # 79-5, at 23, 25-26, 34.)
4.
Chris McClendon concluded that Jurriaans had
“seriously strained”relationships with county ...