Wojcik v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
3:13-cv-02314
N.D. Tex.Jan 26, 2016Background
- Wojcik worked for Costco from 1988 and was Meat Department Manager for 20 years; he was terminated in 2012 at age 60 after an investigation into a backdated SSOP (sanitation) log.
- Wojcik testified that Warehouse Manager Nak-he Evans (late 30s) made age-related remarks to him; Evans investigated and reported alleged falsification to Regional VP Richard Webb, who decided to terminate.
- Court granted partial summary judgment dismissing all claims except Wojcik’s TCHRA (age discrimination) claim; that claim was tried to a jury.
- Jury found Wojcik’s age was a motivating factor in his termination but also found Costco would have terminated him even absent consideration of age; jury awarded no compensatory damages but awarded back and front pay.
- Court entered judgment awarding only attorney’s fees, related nontaxable expenses, taxable costs, and post-judgment interest; denied other relief. Parties filed post-judgment motions under Rules 50(b) and 59(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that age was a motivating factor | Wojcik: Evans’ age-related comments and her investigation influenced Webb; evidence supports cat’s paw inference | Costco: comments are stray remarks, no pretext, same-actor presumption, and animus not proximate cause | Court: Evidence sufficient; cat’s paw theory supports jury finding that age was a motivating factor |
| Whether jury finding that Costco would have made same decision is supported | Wojcik: virtually no evidence supports same-decision finding; verdict inconsistent | Costco: Webb’s testimony and evidence of falsification and prior terminations support same-decision defense | Court: Evidence sufficient for jury to find Costco would have terminated Wojcik regardless of age; denies relief altering that finding |
| Entitlement to injunctive or declaratory relief | Wojcik: requests injunction and declaration that Costco violated TCHRA based on jury finding | Costco: Relief was not pled in pretrial order; late request prejudiced Costco and should be waived | Court: Waives injunctive relief for failure to seek in pretrial order; declines declaratory relief as merely restating verdict |
| Attorney’s fees and costs under TCHRA | Wojcik: prevailing party because jury found age was a motivating factor | Costco: under Peterson and TCHRA, plaintiff must obtain actual relief to be prevailing party; here no merits relief awarded | Court: Follows Peterson — Wojcik not a prevailing party because he obtained no relief on the merits; denies fees and alters judgment to dismiss with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.) (cat’s paw theory explained)
- Roberson v. Alltel Info. Servs., 373 F.3d 647 (5th Cir.) (requirements to invoke cat’s paw)
- Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir.) (cat’s paw discussion)
- Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d 335 (5th Cir.) (TCHRA fee rule: no fees without obtaining actual relief)
- Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing Rule 50 motions)
- Goodner v. Hyundai Motor Co., 650 F.3d 1034 (5th Cir.) (upholding jury verdict where evidence leaves reasonable dispute)
- Brennan’s Inc. v. Dickie Brennan & Co., 376 F.3d 356 (5th Cir.) (instructions on reviewing JMOL evidence)