Dell, Inc. v. William Wise, Jr.
424 S.W.3d 100
Tex. App.2013Background
- Wise, a 61‑year‑old eleven‑year TSR (technical sales representative) at Dell, was placed on a Performance Action Plan and then a Performance Improvement Plan and was terminated in 2008; supervisors who disciplined/fired him were in their mid‑30s.
- Dell used two‑year historical sales data to set team quotas; individual TSR evaluations combined quota attainment and qualitative factors; Dell had written PIP procedures requiring HR validation, documentation, weekly meetings, and at least one quarter to show improvement.
- Wise had strong prior performance (Circle of Excellence awards, high blended attainment in 2007) and contemporaneous praise from supervisors and customers, but received a 2008 annual rating of "below" and was the only TSR under his manager placed on both a Performance Action Plan and a PIP.
- Evidence at trial showed quota‑setting and external business conditions (Air Force spending cycles, new team members) could make quotas unrealistic and that Dell managers sometimes failed to follow internal PIP policies.
- Wise sought damages for back pay, front pay, and mental anguish; CPA/economist Dr. Thomas Glass testified to back pay and front‑pay calculations based on past earnings, benefits, SSA wage projections, life‑expectancy tables, and standard discounting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was legally sufficient evidence that age was a motivating factor in termination | Dell treated Wise differently than younger TSRs, failed to follow its PIP policies, and contemporaneous praise and awards undercut Dell’s poor‑performance justification | Dell argued termination was for poor performance (missed quotas), no direct evidence of age bias, no similarly situated younger comparator disciplined, and policies were followed or only sloppily applied | Affirmed: jury could reasonably find age was a motivating factor based on disparate treatment, failure to follow procedures, and contradictory praise/evidence of satisfactory performance |
| Sufficiency and admissibility of damages (back pay, front pay, mental anguish) | Dr. Glass’s methodology (average past earnings, benefits, SSA wage growth, retirement date, discounting) provided a reliable basis for back and front pay; plaintiff and spouse testified to nature, duration, and severity of mental anguish | Dell challenged expert as unreliable and speculative, argued faulty assumptions and failure to deduct post‑termination earnings; also attacked mental‑anguish evidence | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting expert; his method is reliable for front/back pay; testimony supported compensatory award (past mental anguish) |
| Whether front pay could be submitted to the jury | Front pay amount is a jury question once the court determines equitable remedy is appropriate | Dell argued only the trial court can award front pay, not the jury | Affirmed: trial court may submit amount to jury; Dell stipulated reinstatement unavailable; jury properly determined front‑pay amount |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (burden‑shifting when case not tried on the merits; evidentiary sufficiency principles)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (Texas recognizes direct and pretext methods in discrimination cases)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (jury credibility and legal/factual sufficiency standards)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (trial court gatekeeping duty for expert qualification and reliability)
- Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (mental‑anguish proof requirements: nature, duration, severity)
- Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (lost wages require competent proof with reasonable certainty)
- Hansard v. Pepsi–Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 865 F.2d 1461 (5th Cir. 1989) (front pay is prospective, equitable remedy; jury may determine amount once equitable determination made)