Rodd Wagner v. Gallup, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9856
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rodd Wagner, a 50-year-old former Subject Matter Expert at Gallup, was terminated in October 2011 after ~12 years; he had authored two Gallup books and had variable billable utilization tied to non-billable writing work.
- Gallup used Internal Customer Engagement (ICE) scores and utilization rates; Wagner’s ICE scores and utilization declined in 2010–2011, and his new manager, Patrick Bogart (35), reported difficulties integrating Wagner with teams and perceived self-orientation.
- Wagner recorded two calls with Bogart; Bogart used words like “historically” and “old school” in a conversation about Wagner’s approach and utilization. Wagner alleges age discrimination (MHRA) and appropriation (Gallup continued to list him as a Gallup principal on a web page after termination).
- District court granted summary judgment to Gallup on the MHRA age-discrimination claim (found no genuine issue that Gallup’s stated reasons were pretext) and, under Rule 56(f), dismissed the appropriation claim for lack of evidence of intentional appropriation. The court also limited discovery and sanctioned Wagner’s attorney for improper subpoenas.
- On appeal, Wagner challenged (1) the summary-judgment rulings on age discrimination and appropriation, (2) certain discovery limitations, and (3) sanctions against his counsel; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wagner presented direct evidence of age discrimination (MHRA) | Bogart’s language (“historically,” “old school”), Bogart’s youth, Gallup’s alleged ageist culture, and Wagner’s strong performance show direct discriminatory motive | Remarks in context do not evince age animus; other evidence shows legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | No: remarks and anecdotal evidence insufficient to satisfy the direct-method “substantially strong” inference requirement |
| Whether Wagner raised a triable issue of pretext under McDonnell Douglas | Wagner says Gallup’s reasons lack factual basis, his record was strong, and younger employees were treated better | Gallup points to lowered ICE scores, low utilization, inability to integrate Wagner, and legitimate managerial judgments | No: Gallup stated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and Wagner failed to produce probative evidence of pretext |
| Whether Gallup committed appropriation by failing to label Wagner a “former” principal on its website | Wagner contends Gallup intentionally kept the web language for commercial advantage and knew of the issue | Gallup argues no evidence of intentional retention until deposition; website pages changed and were ultimately removed | No: appropriation requires intentional use; Wagner did not show the requisite intent |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in discovery limits and in sanctioning counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 | Wagner contends discovery limits prevented proof and counsel acted reasonably to secure witnesses | Gallup points to protective orders and that subpoenas commanded appearances in other districts and violated court orders; counsel acted unreasonably | No abuse: discovery rulings within discretion; sanctions appropriate because subpoenas were objectively unreasonable and vexatious |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standard and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Hamblin v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 636 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (corporate atmosphere evidence can support discrimination inference)
- Riser v. Target Corp., 458 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussion of prima facie case and moving directly to pretext when employer articulates legitimate reason)
- Clark v. UPS, Inc., 460 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard for sanctions under § 1927: objective unreasonableness and reckless or intentional multiplication of proceedings)