GARY ALLEN FEESS, Judge.
This is an employment case in which Plaintiff Loratious Presley ("Presley" or "Plaintiff"), an African-American employee of RJR, claims that he was wrongfully terminated on the basis of his race. Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR") contends that Presley was terminated for serious misconduct — falsifying a work report, lying to his supervisor regarding his work activities, and involving a customer in his misconduct. The case was tried to the Court on March 11 and 12, 2014.
The following sets forth this Court's statement of its intended decision in this case. The document does not address every detail of the case, contains few citations to the record, and should not be construed as the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rather, it states the Court's intended resolution of the case and provides direction to the prevailing party, who will prepare revised findings of fact and conclusions of law that are consistent with this document. In short, this document should be viewed as a decision with guidance. In that regard, although the Court anticipates that the proposed findings and conclusions will be substantially more detailed than this document, will likely cover matters not expressly addressed in this document, and will contain citations to the record, the Court expects that the proposed findings and conclusions will be consistent with this statement of decision.
To summarize, the Court concludes that judgment should be entered in favor of RJR. Not only did Presley fail to prove that his termination was the result of discriminatory animus, the weight of the evidence established that RJR terminated Presley for misconduct. Judgment will be entered for RJR.
Defendant RJR, like most manufacturers of consumer products, sells its products in geographical territories where sales to retail outlets are overseen by a Territory Manager. The Territory Manager reports to a Senior Division Manager who typically oversees eight different territories. Approximately eight Senior Division Managers, in turn, report to a Senior Director of Trade Marketing.
Through the Territory Manager, RJR maintains contact with its customers. The Territory Manager bears sole responsibility for increasing the sale of RJR products within his territory. Accordingly, the Territory Manager is responsible for making periodic sales calls on each retail outlet that carries RJR branded products in its inventory. On any given day, the Territory Manager, who normally performs his duties alone, determines in his discretion which of his accounts he will call on. During visits, the Territory Manager's duties include the following, among others: (1) the inspection of customer premises to insure that RJR brands are visibly displayed in proper quantities at the correct prices; (2) a determination that the proper amount of RJR products are in stock; (3) an assessment of the location of brand displays; (4) a determination that brand promotions have been properly implemented; and (5) an evaluation of the placement of point of sale materials.
Trial witnesses described the Territory Manager as the "eyes and ears" of RJR within the territory. Mr. Roman, a high level RJR manager, testified at trial that, because the Territory Manager is RJR's "CEO" in his area, the company delegates substantial responsibility to him and relies heavily on his honesty and integrity.
Once the Territory Manager has completed a call on an account, RJR policies mandate that he report that call through RJR's Connect Reporting ("Connect") computer system. Connect allows RJR to track all manner of contract compliance on the part of its customers. Accordingly, when the Territory Manager reports through Connect, he ordinarily records his observations relating to pricing, product placement, signage, and product availability for each location he has visited. Because this information is of great importance to RJR's marketing department, utilization of RJR's Connect Reporting system is an essential aspect of the Territory Manager's job performance.
To insure that the Territory Manager's observations are as accurate as humanly possible, RJR policy recommends that observations be entered into the Connect system during the Territory Manager's visit. All sales call activity data entered into the system is time-stamped in local time — in Plaintiff's case, Pacific time.
Presley was trained in the use of the Connect system in approximately 2003-2004, and by 2010 he was very familiar with the system. Presley does not dispute the importance that Connect data be as accurate as possible.
If a customer is not in compliance with its obligations to RJR with respect to signage, pricing, product placement and the like, a Territory Manager has a number of possible actions he can take. These include: giving the customer an oral or written warning; taking away money paid for placing a particular display in a specified location; reducing discounts offered to the customer; and cancelling the contract. In short, the Territory Manager wields substantial power in the area he services.
Although Territory Managers normally perform their duties alone, the Senior Division Manager will, from time to time, announce that he will meet the Territory Manager in the field to review the calls the Territory Manager has made. RJR refers to these events as a "work with." This case involves issues of Presley's alleged misconduct in connection with a "work with" with his District Manager, Andrew Bradigan.
RJR hired Loratious Presley ("Presley" or "Plaintiff") in 1992 as a Territory Manager,
At the time of Presley's termination, his Senior Division Manager was Andrew Bradigan. Bradigan had worked as a Territory Manager starting in 2008, and was promoted to Division Manager in June 2010. As the Territory Managers' supervisor, the Senior Division Manager is expected to periodically conduct a "work with" with each Territory Manager. A "work with" is self-defining — the Senior Division Manager and the Territory Manager go into the workplace together to create a training and evaluation opportunity. The Senior Division Manager has a chance to observe his Territory Manager's practices both to help him improve and, if the Territory Manager has developed practices or techniques that might be useful company-wide, to acquire that information and pass it along to others.
By all accounts, Presley performed well as an RJR employee. Plaintiff had no history of performance problems, and received consistently favorable performance reviews. He was well-regarded by Mr. Roth who had worked with Mr. Presley from 1999 to 2010.
Applicable RJR policies and practices are set forth in its "Trade Marketing Employee Handbook," which is provided to each employee when hired. (Ex. 8.) The handbook contains general information regarding an employee's duties and responsibilities, a detailed discussion of workplace practices, and cross-references the company's code of conduct. (Id.) The handbook includes a description of RJR's corrective action policy. (Id, at 75 et seq.) The corrective action policy also contains a section that lists "reasons for immediate termination." (Id. at 78.) Those reasons include:
(Id.) The record reflects that Presley received a copy of the handbook on November 8, 2006. (Ex. 21, Bates 643-44.)
Mr. Watson, who is himself African-American and the Director of Workplace Practices, described RJR's approach to the enforcement of these policies to insure consistent application in all cases. For example, he explained that he becomes involved in every termination to insure consistency and uniform application of the company's policies and practices. He noted that Division Managers do not have unilateral authority to terminate an employee; every termination goes through Workplace Practices review. Mr. Watson testified that the company consistently terminates employees who provide false or misleading information to their supervisors, or in a report. Where his review establishes that the employee has in fact engaged in acts of dishonesty, which historically represents about 10 to 15 cases a year, the employee is terminated.
On August 20, 2010, sometime between 11:00 a.m and 1:00 p.m. Bradigan attemtped to reach Presley to arrange a "work with." After Bradigan contacted him, Presley entered data in Connect Reporting for visits to customers he purportedly made earlier that day. Bradigan and Presley describe radically different versions of those events, which requires the Court to resolve the credibility conflict raised by these differing versions of the key events. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the evidence presented at trial thoroughly impeached Presley's version of the key events. The Court first sets forth what it finds to have happened on August 20, 2010, and thereafter addresses the reasons for its credibility determination.
At roughly mid-day on August 20, 2010, Bradigan attempted to contact Presley to arrange a "work with" during the afternoon. Presley, who had not been in the field that morning and now concedes that fact, responded and learned that Bradigan wanted to accompany him in the field that afternoon. This conversation occurred shortly before 12:30 p.m. After Bradigan contacted Presley, Presley entered data into Connect that reflected that he had visited customers earlier that day. Specifically, between 12:41 p.m. and 12:56 p.m., Presley entered data for seven visits that were purportedly conducted on the morning of August 20.
When Bradigan and Presley met, they reviewed the data entered into Connect, and Bradigan asked Plaintiff to revisit the locations that Presley had entered into Connect as having been visited earlier that day. Presley did not disclose to Bradigan that he had made no visits earlier that day nor did he indicate that he had visited those stores the night before. Instead, Presley and Bradigan proceeded to the locations that Presley had supposedly visited without any indication from Presley that the visits had not taken place. Bradigan became suspicious of the veracity of the Connect data because, during the first two visits, Bradigan observed that the conditions of the retail locations, notably product availability, did not appear to match the conditions that Presley reported observing earlier that day.
Bradigan and Presley then visited Rite Aid store 05423, another store that Presley reported having visited that morning. Shortly after they arrived at the store, Bradigan and Presley were separated; Bradigan noted again that the condition of the store differed significantly from the information contained in the Connect report. Bradigan approached the store manager, Eddy Cuellar, and asked whether Presley had in fact been in the store earlier that day. Cuellar advised Bradigan that, although he (Cuellar) had been in the store the entire day, he had not seen Presley. Cuellar then reported that Presley had asked him (Cuellar) to lie to Bradigan — to tell Bradigan that Presley had been in the store earlier if Bradigan asked. Bradigan then viewed surveillance video and determined that it corroborated Cuellar and showed that Presley had not been at the store that day.
Presley at first acknowledged that he had not visited these locations, but then changed his story to claim that he had visited them the prior evening. Presley asserted that, although he entered his report regarding the visits on August 20, 2010, he actually visited the stores on August 19, 2010 but could not enter the data because the computer system was not working.
Presley contends that, on the evening of August 19, 2010, he visited the stores that are reflected in the Connect system as having been visited on August 20, 2010. He contends that these visits were entered on August 20 because of computer problems on August 19 that precluded him from entering the data. He denies claiming that he visited these stores on August 20, and he generally attacks the credibility of both Bradigan and Cuellar.
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's arguments in support of his version of events and finds that they are not credible. The Court notes the following:
To summarize, the Court finds that:
Bradigan reported the events of August 20 to his manager based on what appeared to be an alarming breach of company policy: (1) Presley's falsification of data entered into the Connect system; (2) Presley's making of false statements to Bradigan indicating that he had made visits to customers on August 20, 2010; and (3) Presley's involvement of an RJR customer by asking Eddy Cuellar to lie to corroborate other false statements made by Presley to Bradigan, The issue of discipline was discussed within the Trade Marketing chain of command and with high level managers in Work Place Practices. Eventually, a decision was made that Presley had engaged in serious misconduct, that the misconduct subjected Presley to potential termination, and that termination of employment was appropriate.
The legal principles that apply in this case are well-established and not particularly complicated. The Court will only briefly discuss them and their application in this case.
As the record indicates, Presley was an at-will employee with RJR. California law provides that "[a]n at-will employment may be ended by either party `at any time without cause,' for any or no reason, and subject to no procedure except the statutory requirement of notice.
Presley claims that his termination was racially motivated and brings two claims that essentially raise the same issue: (1) termination in violation of the California Fair Housing and Employment Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(a) and (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy — racial discrimination. Both claims require proof that RJR was Presley's employer, that Presley was an employee and that Presley suffered an adverse employment action that caused him harm. (See CACI, Civil Jury Instructions Nos. 2500 and 2430; see also Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instructions (Civil), Instruction Nos. 10.1A — 10.1C.) There is no real dispute that RJR terminated Presley's employment. Likewise, there is no dispute that he was a member of a protected class. The only element in issue, which is common to both claims, is whether Presley's race was "a substantial motivating reason for the discharge."
Assuming for purposes of discussion that Presley has presented enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the record demonstrates that RJR has shown a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Presley — that he engaged in the kind of misconduct that its manual warns is cause for immediate termination. The Court must therefore review the record to determine whether there is specific and substantial evidence that would tend to show that the reason given was pretextual.
Here Plaintiff has not met his burden. The Court notes the following:
Despite this dearth of evidence, Plaintiff insists that RJR's investigation into his alleged misconduct was inadequate and pretextual to conceal an unlawful motive and achieve an illegal result. However, the evidence established that RJR proceeded in this case as it had in any number of other similar cases. Bradigan referred the matter to his boss, and his boss directed him to bring in RJR's "Workplace Practices" to discuss the matter and determine how it should be addressed. It is true that aspects of Presley's story were not investigated — particularly his claim that he visited the locations in issue on August 19 — but RJR reasonably concluded that, once it was clear that Presley had lied about several important matters, there was nothing to be gained by expanding the investigation. This was not an unreasonable conclusion and not one that the Court should second-guess.
Moreover, Presley fails to explain why RJR, after 18 years, would want to terminate him in the absence of actual misconduct. Presley was well known to managers involved in the termination decision and was recognized as a good, long-term employee who had their respect. No one held any animus toward Presley, racial or otherwise. But once he was caught in serious acts of dishonesty, RJR concluded that he could no longer be trusted. Given the responsibilities of a Territory Manager, RJR reasonably concluded that it could not tolerate having someone in that position whose integrity was in doubt. As Watson testified, RJR receives 10 to 15 reported instances of employee dishonesty each year. Once RJR confirms acts of dishonesty, the employees who were found to have engaged in that kind of misconduct were consistently terminated. In such circumstances, length of service and prior performance are not taken into account because they are not considered relevant to the question of the employee's integrity. Presley was not treated any differently than any other similarly situated RJR employees.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that judgment should be entered in favor of RJR. RJR is to submit amended proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with this statement along with a proposed judgment. The findings should contain citations to the evidentiary record, and should be lodged in a format that will permit the Court to review and edit the document. The amended findings of fact and conclusions of law and proposed judgment are to be filed with the Court no later than close of business on Friday, May 23, 2014.
