DES MOINES, Iowa (Legal Newsline) - A meatpacking plant worker who texted a profane insult to his boss but later claimed he meant it for a friend can’t sue for age discrimination and wrongful dismissal, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled, affirming the burden-shifting framework for proving workplace discrimination.
David Alan Feeback worked at Swift Pork Co. for nearly 30 years until he got into a confrontation with his immediate boss and the plant manager on New Year’s Eve that ended with him texting the manager: “F--- You!” and “Believe who and what you want.”
Three days later, Swift fired him. Feeback sued, claiming age discrimination, workplace harassment and retaliation. At a deposition, Feeback admitted he sent the text and couldn’t explain why he meant to send it to his friend. He also couldn’t identify any other Swift employees who had been fired because of age, or recall any mention of his age in connection with his termination.
The trial court dismissed all of his claims, finding no evidence of age discrimination or retaliation. Feeback appealed, where the court reversed the dismissal of the age discrimination claim. But in a March 31 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court again dismissed all his claims.
To support his allegations, Feeback said he complained to his direct supervisor in 2015 that the trolleys used to transport hog carcasses were in poor condition and endangered workers, but his boss hung up on him.
“Their conflict came to a head on Dec. 31,” the Supreme Court wrote, when the plant’s general manager canceled a safety meeting Feeback had scheduled and sent workers home early instead. The manager then told Feeback to listen to criticism of his job performance with his “mouth shut and arms open.”
Later that evening, Feeback sent the two messages to the manager, who shared screenshots of them with the plant’s human resources director. Feeback admitted he sent the messages but said it was by mistake and they were intended for a friend. The H.R. director asked him why he didn’t call to explain and Feeback said he wanted to do it in person in the morning.
The trial judge applied the so-called McDonnell Douglas framework to analyze Feeback’s claims, named after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, under which the burden of proof shifts from the employee claiming discrimination to the employer, and back to the employee to prove the employer’s explanation was a mere pretext. Feeback failed to provide evidence his firing was linked to the safety complaints he made seven months earlier, the judge ruled, and he failed to provide evidence of age discrimination at the plant.
The Supreme Court agreed. “Today’s case is a textbook example illustrating the burden-shifting function,” the court said. The question isn’t whether Feeback sent the texts accidentally, the court wrote, but whether the human-resources manager had a “good-faith honest belief” that Feeback was insubordinate.
The court similarly rejected the argument Feeback’s firing for sending a profane message was a pretext since the plant was a hotbed of profanity, citing a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision where a man in a workplace with “rampant profanity” was legitimately fired for yelling “F--- you. That’s bullshit” to a supervisor.
“While there is a culture of profanity at the meatpacking plant, no other employee texted or said `F--- You!’ to the plant manager right after his negative performance review,” the court concluded. “We hold this plaintiff lacked proof sufficient to raise a jury question on age discrimination.”