In 2015, an employee of more than two decades sued Swift Pork Company after termination from sending offensive text messages to his supervisor, alleging age discrimination, workplace harassment and wrongful termination.
David Feeback, a 60-year-old employee at the time, served as middle management at the Marshalltown, Iowa facility. After running the cut floor for years and receiving mostly positive reviews, he began receiving negative feedback from his bosses in 2015.
After seven months of workplace friction, Feeback sent an explicit text to his supervisor which ended in his suspension and final termination.
Swift Pork Company challenged Feeback’s affidavit, “arguing its substance would be inadmissible at trial.”
The district court agreed and Swift was granted summary judgment on all three claims.
However, The Iowa Court of Appeals recently stated in ruling documents, “Because a genuine issue of material fact exists on the age-discrimination claim, we reverse that part of the judgment and remand.”
This reversal likely stems from Feeback claiming he noticed a pattern of older employees being terminated, demoted or otherwise forced out before retirement. Ruling documents claimed Feeback’s tracking found nine management-level employees who were “forced out after reaching age 56.” Feeback also noted Swift’s “high management turnover rate and low retirement rate.”
Feeback added that explicit language is a normal occurrence within all levels of the company and “younger employees faced no repercussions for swearing in the workplace.” Therefore, termination for that reason seemed unjustified.
The Iowa Court of Appeals concluded that Feeback’s affidavit shares specific facts based on personal knowledge of workplace events. In result, the Court decided to “reverse the grant of summary judgment on Feeback’s age discrimination claim and remand for trial.”
