Wagner v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan
2:22-cv-11105
| E.D. Mich. | Jul 25, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Paul Wagner, born 1960 (age 63), worked for Farm Bureau from 2008 and served as a Managing Partner (MP) in Southeast (promoted 2016) and then Bay Thumb (transferred 2019) regions.
- Prior Bay Thumb MP (Danny Negin), younger than Wagner, had been placed on a written performance-improvement plan (PIP); Wagner received generally positive written evaluations and no documented discipline.
- In December 2020 Wagner was told supervisors expected him to retire in 2022; Wagner denied any intent to retire.
- In March 2021 Wagner was told the Bay Thumb region and his MP position were being eliminated and he was offered a three-year buyout; he was then terminated effective May 24, 2021.
- Plaintiff sued for age discrimination under the ADEA and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; defendant contended Wagner was fired for persistent performance problems and lack of engagement.
- The district court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding Wagner established a prima facie case and presented sufficient evidence of pretext to send the claims to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie ADEA/ELCRA claim | Wagner is >40, was qualified, was terminated, and circumstances (transfer to troubled region, younger MP given PIP, retirement comments) support inference of age discrimination | Defendant conceded membership/termination/qualification but argued plaintiff cannot show circumstances supporting inference of discrimination | Court: Wagner met the light prima facie burden; circumstantial evidence (timing, transfer, differential treatment of Negin, retirement comments) sufficed |
| Employer's proffered legitimate reason | N/A (plaintiff challenges sincerity) | Farm Bureau: termination based on persistent performance problems and lack of engagement | Court: Employer offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (burden-shifting step satisfied) |
| Pretext | Wagner shows (1) timing of retirement comments followed by elimination timed to reach an expected retirement year, (2) asserted performance reasons lack documentary support or contemporaneous notice, (3) younger MP received remedial PIP while Wagner did not, and (4) three-year buyout inconsistent with firing for poor performance | Farm Bureau argues performance failures and lack of engagement justified termination; denies age motivation | Court: Viewing record in plaintiff’s favor, a jury could reasonably find the proffered reasons pretextual and age was the but-for cause; summary judgment denied |
| Summary judgment appropriateness | Facts and inferences create genuine disputes suitable for jury resolution | Defendant sought summary judgment arguing lack of evidence of discrimination or pretext | Court: Denied summary judgment; factual disputes and pretext evidence make disposition at summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (summary-judgment review and inferences)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir.) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence and pretext analysis)
- Williard v. Huntington Ford, Inc., 952 F.3d 795 (6th Cir.) (caution against granting summary judgment where pretext and motive are disputed)
- Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Co., 946 F.3d 292 (6th Cir.) (describing McDonnell Douglas burden shifting)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir.) (types of evidence to show pretext)
- Louzon v. Ford Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556 (6th Cir.) (similarly situated comparator analysis)
- Yazdian v. ConMed Endo. Tech., Inc., 793 F.3d 634 (6th Cir.) (jury may reject employer’s explanation where record shows consistent positive performance)