Parker Perret v. Nationwide Mutual Ins Comp
770 F.3d 336
5th Cir.2014Background
- Perret and Pierre were long‑time Nationwide sales managers supervised by Brian McCulloch; they were the two oldest managers in the region and Pierre was the only African‑American manager.
- In late 2009 both were placed on coaching plans; in April 2010 each was escalated to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
- Perret forfeited a quarter bonus because of the PIP and resigned May 24, 2010; Pierre took medical leave after his PIP and resigned July 3, 2010. Pierre later died and his claims proceeded through his estate.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging constructive discharge based on age (Perret) and age and race (Pierre); the jury found constructive discharge but also found Nationwide would have put them on the plans regardless of age/race (mixed‑motives).
- The mixed‑motives finding barred monetary damages under Texas law; Nationwide moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) arguing insufficient evidence of constructive discharge. The district court denied JMOL; the Fifth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports constructive discharge | Plaintiffs: coaching plans/PIPs were pretext for discrimination and made continued employment intolerable | Nationwide: PIPs were performance‑based; no demotion, harassment, or ultimatum; resignation not compelled | Reversed: insufficient evidence of constructive discharge |
| Whether PIPs and coaching plans by themselves can prove constructive discharge | Plaintiffs: use and implementation showed inevitability of termination | Nationwide: PIPs alone do not make conditions intolerable absent other factors | Held: PIPs alone insufficient without demotion, pay cut, reassignment, harassment, or ultimatum |
| Admissibility of testimony from former Nationwide manager (Brad Carducci) | Plaintiffs: Carducci’s opinions on Perret/Pierre plans were permissible lay testimony | Nationwide: exclusion proper because that testimony was undisclosed expert opinion | Held: district court did not err in excluding Carducci’s expert‑style opinions |
| Whether remand should preserve other appeals issues (attorneys’ fees, costs) | Plaintiffs: district court erred limiting testimony & denying fees | Nationwide: JMOL should be granted | Held: reversal on constructive discharge made addressing other issues unnecessary; remanded with judgment for Nationwide |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Serv. Temps Inc., 679 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2012) (deferential standard reviewing jury verdict/JMOL)
- Aryain v. Wal‑Mart Stores Texas LP, 534 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2008) (factors relevant to constructive discharge)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2004) (constructive discharge standard—working conditions so intolerable a reasonable person would resign)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (Texas law on constructive discharge)
- Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare Sys., LLC, 277 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2001) (list of constructive discharge factors)
- Faruki v. Parsons S.I.P., Inc., 123 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1997) (ultimatum cases require objective evidence beyond subjective belief)
- Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. App. 2006) (examples of employer statements supporting constructive discharge)
- Stephens v. C.I.T. Grp./Equip. Fin., Inc., 955 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1992) (demotion and sustained limitations may support reasonable belief of impending termination)