TEAM APPEALS COURT'S DECISION

TEAM appeals court's decision
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof
Park Rapids Enterprise - 09/05/2006


TEAM Industries is appealing Judge Jay D. Mondry’s decisions in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte.

In February, Mondry found in favor of LaBonte, awarding him front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees.

TEAM filed a motion for a new trial or amended findings March 8.

Mondry found for LaBonte again. In June, the judge issued an order denying the motion for a new trial and awarding LaBonte’s attorney fees and costs of $237,494.

The appeal challenges all aspects of the case from the award of pay to whether or not LaBonte’s layoff was justified.

LaBonte had been employed as a machine operator for approximately five years and was 60 at the time of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant April 7, 2003. Of 32 people terminated at that time, 21 were 40 years old or older. One expert, who testified during the trial, said the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age.

In addition, the court record states that while approximately 67 percent of the county’s available workforce is over age 40, only 44 percent of TEAM’s workers were in the over 40 group, even prior to the terminations.

TEAM claims the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown. Further, TEAM claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not have been awarded front and back pay.

Mondry ruled that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered. “Finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities,” Mondry determined. He also ruled that TEAM provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.

Last week, LaBonte’s attorney, Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, said TEAM has raised no new arguments in the appeal.

“The evidence (for LaBonte) is overwhelming,” and the statistics bear that out, Cooper said. “They definitely don’t like or accept the outcome.”

Although TEAM has the right to appeal, Cooper said the situation seems to be they don’t understand the problem. “It’s not unusual for companies to take it (an adverse ruling) as a learning opportunity and go forward. In this case, TEAM refuses to accept the facts.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to go through the process,” Cooper added.

It could be six to eight months before the case is decided, Cooper said.

TEAMWORKS GRANT INVITES LATINOS

Teamworks grant invites Latinos
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof
Park Rapids Enterprise - 07/25/2006

Teamworks, Inc., Park Rapids has been awarded two Minnesota Job Skills Partnership (MJSP) Program grants of 22 grants given statewide to support thousands of incumbent and lower-income workers in receiving customized workplace training.

The MJSP Board awarded $3.8 million to such programs.

“These grants represent important economic development initiatives for the State of Minnesota,” said acting commissioner and MJSP Board chair Ward Einess.

“In particular, the ongoing development of English-language skills among incumbent and lower-income workers lessens the barrier to their success and is critical to continued growth in our demand industries and services.”

One of the grants to Teamworks and TEAM Industries, Detroit Lakes and Audubon, will fund new machinist curriculum to support the growth of a Latino machinist labor force.

“This will be the first Spanish machinist program in the state,” said Kathy Carney, Teamworks CEO.

“We’re finding not enough people to fill these skilled jobs,” Carney said. Citing a low unemployment rate of 3 percent, she said, “We figure we have to look at innovative ways to recruit new employees.

“We believe the Latino population has been underutilized and will often take jobs others won’t. We also think Latinos have the same aspirations and goals for career mobility and pay that everyone else has.”

Teamworks has begun placing ads seeking documented workers with some English skills and an interest in manufacturing jobs in some newspapers written for Spanish-speaking populations. They also are recruiting in Minnesota communities with a Latino population, including Willmar, Pelican Rapids, St. Cloud and Owatonna.

In addition, Carney and Rosalie Hjermstad, Park Rapids, a consultant with Teamworks and the Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corp., will be going to colleges in Brownsville, TX to seek candidates for further training.

Initially, the grant would fund 65 trainees in on-the-job training for foundry; computer numerical controlled lathe and CNC mill operations; English for manufacturing; and technical training.

The second grant awarded to Teamworks is for $173,250 to recruit, assess and train 75 eligible low-income workers to become CNC machine operators. These trainees will be recruited from Red Lake, White Earth and Leech Lake reservations and the surrounding area, Carney said.

JUDGE RULES FOR LABONTE-AGAIN

Judge rules for LaBonte - again
Lu Ann Hurd-Lof Park Rapids Enterprise
Published Friday, July 07, 2006

Judge Jay D. Mondry recently denied motions by TEAM Industries in the age discrimination case brought by Edward LaBonte and awarded LaBonte’s attorney fees and costs.

Mondry heard the original case last summer. LaBonte claimed he was wrongfully fired during a round of layoffs at the Park Rapids plant in early 2003. He and others over the age of 50 were among 32 terminated employees.

TEAM insisted the layoffs were nondiscriminatory and were necessary due to a work slowdown.

In February, Mondry found for LaBonte and ordered TEAM to pay LaBonte front and back pay of $254,250 plus attorney’s fees.

Shortly after the judge’s order was issued, TEAM’s attorney Alec Beck of Minneapolis moved for either a new trial or a change in the court’s findings. He also challenged the court’s decision to award LaBonte’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Mondry’s latest order was filed June 28.

TEAM had claimed LaBonte’s efforts to find another job were less than adequate so he should not be awarded front and back pay.

In arriving at his decision, the judge upheld his earlier determination that LaBonte was not required to take any position that was offered, that “finding suitable employment in Park Rapids cannot be compared to finding employment in the Twin Cities” and Team provided no evidence that LaBonte turned down positions or hesitated to secure subsequent employment.

The order also addressed TEAM’s arguments that LaBonte’s attorney, Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, had not met all the requirements to prove a case of age discrimination.

For example, TEAM argued Cooper failed to prove he was qualified for the job in question and claimed they offered LaBonte an opportunity to be rehired and he declined.

Mondry wrote, “The defendants (TEAM) can not have it both ways. Clearly the evidence demonstrates the plaintiff (LaBonte) was in fact a qualified person for the position.”

Further, the judge found LaBonte “has met his burden of proof and established that age discrimination was a causative factor in the decision to terminate him.”

Another point of contention had been TEAM’s use of a “forced ranking” system to measure each employee’s performance. This system was used to determine which employees were laid off.

The forced ranking system negatively affected older workers but was used even though other alternatives were available to the employer, Mondry’s order states.

The order also awards attorney’s fees and costs of $237,494.

In March, Beck said TEAM would file an appeal regardless of whether motions before the court in Hubbard County were granted or not.

This week, the LaBontes said they expect TEAM will appeal.

"TEAM ORDERED TO PAY $255,000" ...AGE DISCRIMINATION IN MINNESOTA!!!: TEAM STILL DOESN'T GET IT

"TEAM ORDERED TO PAY $255,000" ...AGE DISCRIMINATION IN MINNESOTA!!!: TEAM STILL DOESN'T GET IT

THIS IS ED!

Hi ! I'm Dobi.. Welcome to my Blog dedicated to my dear husband Ed!

STATE OF MINNESOTA NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF HUBBARD PARK RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 56470

In Re: EDWARD LABONTE

Case Nuniber: 29-C1-04-000238

STEPHEN W COOPER

LORING GREEN EAST

1201 YALE PLACE SUITE A100

MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

You are hereby notified on February 8, 2006 a Judgment

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

was duly entered in the above entitled matter.

A true and correct copy of this notice has been served by mail upon the parties named herein at the last known address of each, pursuant to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.

Darlene Gerbracht, Court Administrator

By LINDY BERG___________________________________________

Dated: February 8, 2006 Deputy

STATE OF MThWIBSOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

cou OF B1JBBARD NINTh JUDICIAL DISTRICT

• COURT F NO: C1-04-238

Edward LaBonte,

Plaintiff,

VS. FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

• •• AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

TEAM Industries, Inc.,

TEAM Industries Park Rapids-DL, Inc.,

TEAM Industries Baxter, Inc.,

TEAM Industries Bagley-Audubon, Inc.,

And TEAM Industries,

Defendants.

The above-captioned matter came before the Court, the Honorable Jay D. Mondry, Judge of District Court, at the Hubbard County Courthouse, for a Court trial on June 7, 8, 9, and 10; July 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15; and August 17 and 18 2005. The final argument by the parties was heard on January 11, 2006. The Plaintiff, Edward LaBonte, appeared in person and through counsel, Stephen W. Cooper, Cooper Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Defendants were represented by Alec J. Beck, Seaton Beck Peters Bowen Feuss, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Court having heard the arguments of counsel and based upon all of the files, records and

• proceedings herein, makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. That TEAM Industries consists of a number of individual corporations, each of which is

engaged in distinct manufacturing operations. The individual corporations are each named as

Defendants in the instant action

2. That Plaintiff, Edward LaBonte, was employed by TEAM hidusthes Park Rapids — DL, Inc.,

a separate corporation within the TEAM Industries family (“TEAM”), from 1998 until April

7, 2003, as a machine operator. TEAM Park Rapids — DL, Inc. has two facilities, one at Park

Rapids, Minnesota and one at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Plaintiff was employed at the Park

Rapids facility. At the time he was laid off, Plaintiff was 60 years old.

3. That in early 2003, both the Park Rapids facility and the Detroit Lakes facility shared a

cornnion General Manager, Jason Roue. In addition, both facilities were under the Human Resources Supervision of Jim Russ, an employee of TEAM Industries located out of Bagley, Minnesota.

4. That Prior to working at TEAM, LaBonte had no experience as a machine operator and was trained for the job at Teamworks, a local non-profit training organization. TEAM paid for approximately 90% of LaB onte’s training. The evidence presented at trial established that the Plaintiff earned approximately $28,600.00 in wages per year and approximately $5,720.00 in benefits per year during his employment with TEAM Industries.

5. That TEAM’s Park Rapids facility was organized into four groups. Employees in Group 1 were responsible for operating the lathes; Group 2 employees were responsible for robotics and lathes; Group 3 employees operated mills; and Group 4 employees ran the pallet pool.

6. That Mr. LaBonte worked on the day shift in “Group 3,” which consisted of a number of milling machines. Plaintiff was qualified only to operate the vertical mills, despite having been trained on several other mills in his group. Plaintiff was not qualified to work in the robotics group, to run the lathes, or to work in the pallet pool. There is evidence that some of the other maôhine operators were able to operate a greater range of machines than Plaintiff.

2

7. That in early 2003, TEAM Park Rapids facility had approximately 231 prOduction and operations employees. TEAM’s Detroit Lakes facility had 112 employees at that time. (Def. Ex.42.)

8. That as early as 2001, TEAM began a process of updating and reevaluating its performance measurement tools. Upon starting his employment with TEAM as General Manager, Jason Roue began a process of “cleaning up” the employee performance review process. At that time, employee performance reviews were conducted by supervisors with a trend towards scoring employees higher than was deserved. Roue began training supervisors on the proper use of the performance evaluation forms, encouraging the supervisors to more accurately review their employees.

9. That in late 2002, at the suggestion of Facilities Manager Mick Christianson, TEAM began to develop a “paired comparison forced-choice management tool,” (the forced ranking tool). Christianson had used a similar tool to evaluate employee performance in a previous job. Christianson testified that, at the time, TEAM intended that the tool would be used for evaluating and improving employee performance.

10.. That the forced ranking tool was developed, by Jim Russ, Director of Corporate Development, Training and Human Resources at TEAM, and Dr. Matt Coumbe, a consultant

.for TEAMworks, a Park Rapids non-profit organization that provides training and job evaluation services to TEAM and other area employers.

11. That Dr. Coumbe has a Ph.D. in Quantitative Tests Measures. His specific area of study

• involved statistics, as applied to testing methodologies and his dissertation focused on a job validation study in the manufacturing industry. As of October 2005, Dr. Coumbe had

completed 29 separate job validation studies, 80% of which were in metals manufacturing industries. Dr. Coumbe was recognized by the Court at trial as an expert in the area of job

3

validation. “Job validation” is a process that analyzes a particular job by breaking down and evaluating all the duties involved in the job with the goal of determining what knowledge, skills, and abilities are required for the specific position and whether or not an individual is effectively performing the job.

12: That Dr. Coumbe’s review of the academic human resource and psychological literature led him to the conclusion that the forced comparison tool was considered a useful and effective tool. Similar forced choice tools have been used for the purpose of rankings and terminations by a number of major organizations in the United States.

13. That Teamworks identified four categories to use with the forced choice tool, and assigned a weight for each category. Those criteria are: performance level (50%), criticality of position (30%), length of service (10%) and promotability (10%). The purpose of using a few clearly spelled out categories .rather than a large number of categories is to attempt to make the system as objective and free of bias as possible.

14. That in implementing the forced ranking tool, each employee is first compared “head to head” to every other employee in their respective departments. The rater compares each set of employees four times —once for each criteria set. An employee is given a “1” if he or she is perceived as outperforming the other employee in a particular measurement category. The other employee would receive a “0” for that category. (Def. Ex. 21.) The forced choice ranking tool does not determine whether an employee is a good performer on an absolute scale. Rather the tool is, in theory, an attempt to: (1) determine whether one employee is a better performer than another employee; and (2) ultimately rank all employees from most crucial to least crucial to the organization. (Def. Ex. 21.)

15. That once the comparisons were completed, the total number of points for each employee being rated orranked was then added together by category, and that number was multiplied

4

by the corresponding weight assigned to the particular category, giving each employee a final score for that particular category. The numbers for all categories were thentotaled and the employees were ranked in descending order by point totals. (Def. Ex 21.)

16. That Jim Russ and Dr. Coumbe had researched different typos of ranking tools and decided to use a ranking system with four categories/criteria because that number of categories was similar to the other rating tools they had considered. The testimony of Mr. Russ and Dr. Cöunibe was that using a smaller number of categories was intended to lessen the chance that the personal bias of the raters could enter into the ratings.

17. That in early 2003, TEAM was experiencing poor sales and performance. TEAM had previously suffered a drop in sales revenue and netprofits between 2000 and 2001. By late 2002 and early 2003, it appeared that the TEAM Park Rapids facility would be losing major customers or jobs, making the financial situation even more difficult.

18. That the financial reports for the Park Rapids facility showed it was operating at a loss in late :2002 and early 2003 and Steve Kast, TEAM Industries director of finance, testified that the Park Rapids facility experienced loss.months during December 2002 and January, February, and April 2003. Mr. Kast testified that TEAM Park Rapids-DL would have a difficult time operating without some cost cutting. In March 2003, TEAM cleared a profit of $2,603.00,

• which was in large part due to the assistance provided by the State through the Shared Work Program.

19. That in March of 2003, TEAM was concerned that it was going to lose a substantial amount of work from two of its biggest clients. At that time, TEAM anticipated losing struts, clutch components, and wheel hubs from Polaris and brake drums and clutch components from club Car. TEAM ultimately lost the Polaris struts, wheel hubs, and some of the clutch work and the Club Car brake drum and clutch work.

5

20. That Dale Maij ala testified that this type slowdown was not uncommon for that time of the year, the spring time. He recalled working only halftime during that stretch in. a previous year. He believed that they would go down to 32 hours a week until things picked up. He also stated that this was related to them at an all shop meeting by Mick Christianson, that layoffs could be avoided by reduction of their hours to 32 hours a week.

21. That on March 9, 2003, in response to loss of work and in an effort to avoid pennanent layoffs, TEAM began participating in the State of Minnesota’s “Shared Work Program,” which reduced the number of hours that production employees, including Plaintiff, worked to 32, with the State reimbursing employees for half of the remaining hours in a full-time, 40- hour work week.

22. That TEAM explored the possibility of voluntary layoffs to address budgetary and overstaffing issues, as had been done in the past. To this end, managers at TEAM determined the number of people that were willing to take a voluntary layoff. However, because not enough people expressed interest in the voluntary layoffs, TEAM General Manager Jason Roue believed that voluntary layoffs were not a solution at that time.

23. That during this time, some employees at TEAM were working more than 40 hours each

week and were being paid for overtime. These employees were employees that were needed to produce particular parts or run particular machines. According to Linda Engen, TBAM’s

• • Human Resources Manager, people who worked on the same shift and on the same machine

• • • as the Plaintiff were working overtime right up until March 31, 2003.

24. That on March 3, 2003, Roue sent out a letter to all employees warning about a downturn in TEAM’s business. This memo informed employees of the fact that the company would be

• • working on a reduced schedule and that TEAM would try to deal with the shortfall by enrolling in the Shared Work Program and possibly using voluntary layoffs. Later, on March

6

1,1, an all employee meeting took place where the Shared Work Programwas discussed, as were voluntary layoffs and work force reductions.

25. That in late March, Roue made the decision to reduce the number of workers at Park Rapids and Detroit Lakes. Roue, together with Jim Russ and management at Park Rapids and Detroit Lakes, decided to use their forced ranking system to determine which employees would be terminated.

26. That on March 24, 2003, the supervisors at the Park Rapids facility, together with Chris Harstad, the day production manager, and Glen Breitweser, the night production manager, received training on the use of the forced choice tool. The training session was led by Christianson and Dr. Coumbe. A handout was given to the attendees explaining the forced ranking system, and a presentation was given which outlined how the ranking should occur.

27. That during the training session, the supervisors were told that the forced rankings would be used for purposes of employee evaluation and promotion. TEAM believed that the supervisors would more accurately rank their employees if they were not aware that the results would be used for terminations. At this time, Christianson had decided to perform the rating in stages, with the individual departments being rated first, followed by further ratings by the managers, in order to determine who would be laid off.

28. That after the supervisory training session, the managers were informed that the forced choice tool would be used to determine the layoffs. The managers were instructed not to inform the supervisors of the purpose of the tool. Dr. Coumbe testified that he was not aware that the forced ranking tool was being used for the terminations prior to the terminations being carried out. Although Dr. Coumbe was aware that the forced ranking tool could be utilized for terminations, he testified that he did not design it for that specific purpose.

7

29 That immediately after the traimng session, the supervisors began the rankmg process The supervisors used a computer program to perform the actual rankings, and: simply saved their results to a folder that could be accessed by Linda Engen, TEAM Human Resources Manager.

30. That Group 3 and Group 4 machine operators were ranked as one group. The Plaintiff, who was in Group 3, was ranked with Group 3 and 4 employees by his own supervisor, Wally Knapp, and the Group 4 supervisor, Roy Stopka. Upon completion of this initial ranking, the Plaintiff ranked 15th out of 19 in Groups 3 and 4.

31. That as the supervisors were ranking their employees, management was reviewing the “indirect” positions “Indirect” positions are those not directly involved in manufacturing, but which instead provide support, mamtenance, and so forth That is when Christianson made the decision to eliminate certain indirect positions as well. Some of the employees whose indirect positions were eliminated were offered a chance to transfer back to the operations floor Ultimately, ten indirect employees were terminated as a result of their

• positions being eliminated.

:32. That the indirect workers who chose to transfer to the production floor were then “folded in”

to the original ranking lists. Harstad and Breitweser ranked the indirect employees against all the other employees in each category, creating a new ranked list, the “Rev A” list. Once the Rev. A lists were completed, the Plaintiff was rated 19 out of 23..

33. That once the ranking list for each group had been assembled, managers took the boftom

25% from each group’s final list to create a list to b.e used for the terminations. Six employees, including Mr. LaBonte, were selected off of the Group 3 and 4 Day Rev. A list. Originally, there were a total of 37 persons on the “25% list,” but that number was later • reduced to 34, after the part-time employees were taken off the list.

8 •

34. That once the “25% list”, consisting of 34 full-time employees, was created, the employees on that list were rated against one another by the managers. This resulted in a list that was

• meant to be the final rankings for layoff purposes. Plaintiff was ranked 2ls out of 34 on that list. In other words, Plaintiff was 14 from the bottom of the list.

• 35. That approximately one week before the layoffs, Roue had detennined that the Park Rapids facility would need to lay off 35-36 employees. At the time he made his decision, Roue did not know how many employees were on the final list or the identity of any of those employees.

36. Twenty-two machinists were ultimately laid off from the Park Rapids facility. Because he was in the bottom 22 on the 25% list, LaBonte was selected for termination. Bight employees who ranked higher than LaBonte were also terminated, as well as the twelve who ranked below him. When added to the part-time and indirect employees who had been terminated at the initial stage of the pro c.ess, the total number of employees terminated on April 7 2003 at Park Rapids was 32.

37. That following the terminations, both Russ and Coumbe analyzed the statistical data

• produced by the layoffs at the Park Rapids and Detroit Lakes facility. This data was analyzed, by Jim Russ and Dr. Coumbe, considering Park Rapids and Detroit Lakes together.

• as one large set of terminations rather than with the terminations at the two facilities being analyzed separately. Russ’ statistical analysis of the terminations at the two facilities together showed that the results were within 1.52 standard deviations of the expected result based on age, which was within the Department of Labor’s prescribed limit of 1.96. At that time, apparently neither Russ nor Dr. Coumbe had, analyzed the data from the terminations at the Park Rapids plant separately, rather than together with ‘the Detroit Lakes facility.

9

38. That after performing his own statistical analysis, Russ retained Teamworks and Dr. Coumbe to perform a statistical analysis and validation of the layoff. According to Coumbe’s analysis, which consisted of a number of different tests as well as economic analyses of the layoffs, there was no significant statistical anomaly in the layoffs with regard to age, and that the layoff had been successful in identifying the more productive employees to retain. Twenty-two of the 32 people terminated from the Park Rapids facility, including the Plaintiff, were terminated using the forced choice ranking tool.

39. That during his employment with the Defendant, Mr. LaBonte was a dedicated, hard working employee for more than 5 years. The Plaintiff had good production rates, job evaluations, and did not have production or disciplinary problems. The Plaintiffs co-workers, for example, Mr. Dolezal, testified that the Plaintiff was a skilled and qualified worker. The Plaintiffs supervisor, Wally Knapp, testified that the job evaluations he did for Mr. LaBonte showed that Mr. LaBonte achieved or exceeded expectations for every year that he was evaluated.

40. That the Plaintiffs expert, Dr. Martin, analyzed the terminations at the Park Rapids plant by analyzing the tennination of all 32 people from the Park Rapids plant and determining whether there was an adverse impact on those workers over 40 years old, over 50 years old, and 60 years old or older. Only 11 of the terminated employees were under 40 years old, with 21 employees being 40 years old or older.

41. that Dr. Martin, through his analysis of the data, came to the conclusion that age was a factor in the terminations. According to Dr. Martin, the odds of an employee being terminated increased along with the employee’s age. Dr. Martin found that the actual terminations that occurred differed from what the expected terminations would be, if age was not a factor, by 2.65 standard deviations. This lead Dr. Martin to conclude that the termination data

supported the conclusion that the process was not neutral to age. The basic result, according to Dr. Martin, was that the older an employee was the more likely it was that the employee would be terminated.

42. That the entire termination by age group broke down as follows: 6 people from the 29 years old and under group were terminated or 10.7% of the total workplace population that was 29 years old or younger; 5 people from the 30 to 39 year old group were terminated, or 6.8% of the workplace population of that age group; 7 people from the 40 to 49 year old group were terminated, or 10.6%; 9 people in the 50 to 59 year old age group were terminated, or 33.33% of that age group in the workplace; and 5 people (including the Plaintiff) were terminated in the 60 years old and over age group, or 62.5% of that age group in the workplace.

43. That the testimony at trial indicated that the Plaintiff was terminated solely because of the forced ranking tool. Only 6 of the people t using the forced ranking tool were under 40 years old, 16 of the people terminated using the forced ranking were over 40. Twelve of the 22 workers terminated using the forced ranking tool were over age 50 (54.5%), despite only 17.6% of the workforce at Park Rapids being over 50 years old. Seventy-five percent of the workers that were over 60 years old were terminated pursuant to the forced ranking (3 out of 4). The terminations that were not carried out using the forced ranking tool did not show any disparity, with 11.11% of the workers under 40 years old being terminated and 10.86% of the workers over 40 years old being terminated. The Defense witnesses. did not offer any alternative explanation (other than age discrimination) for the reason for the disparity in the terminations using the forced ranking tool as applied to the older workers.

44. That Dr. Martin, the Plaintiff’s expert witness, testified that there was a statistically significant adverse impact (based on age) in the terminations using the forced ranking tool.

11

Dr. Martin testiuiedthat the data (Park Rapids terminations), to a reasonable statistical certainty, using generally accepted methodologies recognized by statisticians, constitutes a statistically significant adverse impact of over 2.6 standard deviations, with less than a 1% chance that discrimination based on age was not a factor in the terminations. For those over 50 years old, the data reflected 4.25 standard deviations from what would be expected if age discrimination were not a factor in the terminations.

45. That during Dr. Coumbe’s testimony, he was given the formula (for determining adverse impact) that Jim Russ had used earlier from the OFCCP web site to perform calculations using the Park Rapids and Detroit Lakes data and asked, using just the Park Rapids data, to determine whether there was a statistically significant adverse impact in the Park Rapids terminations based on age. At the conclusion of his calculations, Dr. Coumbe found that the data showed 2.63 standard deviations and that there was a statistically significant adverse impact when examining the Park rapids terminations. Dr. Coumbe also testified that he had only broken out the termination data by “over 40” and “under 40” and had not investigated the impact on those over 50 or over 60 as distinct groups of terminated workers. Dr. Martin’s testimony on the increased adverse impact of the forced ranking tool on those over 50, and again for those over 60, was unrebutted on this point.

46. Thai at least three exceptions were made to the order of rankings contained in the original forced ranking lists — Susan Annexstad, April Conklin, and Dale Maij ala.

47. That Susan Annexstad was first made an exception because her husband was already on the t list (humanitarian reasons) and then later re-ranked because it was felt that she had been ranked as a machine operator and without consideration of herpressure testing abilities. The result of the re-ranking was that Annexstad was above the cutoff for termination and therefore retained her job. Even if Annexstad had not been re-ranked, the

12

evidence indicated that she would have been retained anyway because her husband was being terminated.

48. That April Conklin became an exception either because of her movement on the list in relation to Trena Sunday, or due to a calculation error, as was previously asserted. At trial,

Engen stated that she had noticed Conidin’s movement on the list in relation to Sunday and became concerned because she felt it was possible that Chris Harstad had rated Conklin in a non-objective manner. This concern arose because Conklin had a conflict with Harstad and Bngen believed that it was possible that Conklin had been rated in a biased manner by Harstad. Conklin was therefore re-ranked and retained because of the intervention by Engen and others. The April Conklin exception illustrates that the rankings were subject to manipulation by management, that the criteria used by the raters was subjective, and that bias in the rating process would only be detected if it was of the type that was very obvious or known to management personnel reviewing the ratings.

• 49. That Dale Maij ala was 57 years old at the time of the tenninations and working as an

• expeditor. Maij ala had been working as an expeditor for approximately three and a half years prior to the terminations. His position was eliminated and Mick Christianson told Maijala that there was an opening on the midnight shift in the milling department if he Was interested. Therefore, Maijala was an exception because he was offered ajob on the floor even though he fell below the cutoff for the terminations. They wanted him to inform them

• immediately if he was going to take the offer of returning to the floor area and did not let him consider the offer for a day. Maij ala had arthritis and had serious doubts that he could return to the floor. Because of this Maij ala was terminated a month and a half prior to vesting 80 percent in the employee stock ownership program. There was testimony that established that Dale Maijala and the Plaintiff had moved up and down on the list, with the Plaintiff going

• 13

from three positions above Maijala to seven below him. No one was alerted to their movement on the list, unlike Conklin and Sunday, because no obvious personality issues or concerns of bias were associated with their names. In the end, both Maijala and the Plaintiff were below the cutoff for tennination.

50. That the terminations done at Park Rapids were separate from the terminations done at Detroit Lakes. The terminations done at Park Rapids were all based on the decisions and judgment of the decision makers in Park Rapids and did not involve Detroit Lakes. None of the personnel (decision makers) from Park Rapids played any role at all in the Detroit Lakes terminations or vice versa. Multiple steps and additional re-rankings occurred in the forced ranking at Park Rapids. The terminations at Park Rapids and Detroit Lakes are, .therefore, two separate matters and there is no basis to combine the two distinct layoffs and analyze the data in that manner. The data from the Detroit Lakes layoff is irrelevant to the decisions and occurrences in the Park Rapids terminations.

51. That Dr. Coumbe compared the percentage of the total workforce over 40 years old at TEAM Park Rapids before and after the terminations in reaching his conclusion that the terminations did not have a significant impact based on age. Dr. Coumbe’s analysis concentrated on the ages’ of the workers that remained following the terminations rather than the ages of the workers that were terminated. His analysis also addressed the problem in terms of the ADEA standard, where the protected class is workers over 40 years old, rather than addressing the various age groups: over 50 years old or over 60 years old.

52. That raters (decision makers) ranked people on three of the four criteria: (1) performance, (2) criticality of position, (3) promotability. The fourth category, length of service was computer ranked. The categories were weighted with their assigned percentages: 50% for performance, 30% for criticality, and 10% each for promotability and length of service. Dr.

14

• Coumbe testified that in order for the forced ranking to be reliable it must be followed and that it also should not be used exclusively, in a vacuum, for the basis of a decision.

53. That flaws and inconsistencies existed in the implementation of the foróed ranking tool. During the course of the trial when various witnesses, who were involved in the implementation and/or ranking, were asked what criteria (of the ranking categories) contained items like attendance, the number of machines a person could operate, or what machine a person operated, there was inconsistency in placing the specific aspect within the correct criteria. There was also overlap between the criteria and some vagueness in the definitions for the criteria.

54. That the only truly objective criteria applied in the forced ranking process was length of service, which was only weighted ten percent of the overall rating. The remaining criteria/categories were applied in a subjective manner according to the rater performing the ranking with only the definitions given to the raters during the training session as guidance. That the testimony of Wally Knapp, the Plaintiff’s supervisor, indicated that a person who worked the pallet pooi would automatically have an advantage over someone, for promotability, criticality, and performance, who worked in the, mills, just by virtue of their job. The inclusion of promotability also favored younger workers over older workers in making the ratings for terminations. Also, two new workers, younger workers in their thirties, were hired in February 2003 prior to the terminations and were able to retain their jobs despite the layoffs occurring in April. •

• 55. That the manner in which the forced ranking was implemented did not assist in tracing how

the various rankings and stages of rankings affected the outcome of the final list used for

• • termination. For example, Ms. Engen had difficulty relating what exactly occurred in the

• April Conklin-Trena Sunday ranking switch. At first, she presented (as did her notes, Exhibit

15

10) ‘t as a mistake due to going off of the wrong list. Later, she related the accounts of how she was worried about Chris Harstad being biased when he ranked April Conldin. This led to some sort of re-ranking and either April Conklin being re-ranked only against Trena Sunday or entirely re-ranked. A similar re-ranking was not done for the Plaintiff despite similar

movement on the lists.

56 That, pnor to the terminations, Lmda Engen prepared a report for Jim Russ that indicated that

21 employees, or 66%, of those who were going to be terminated were over age forty The terminations were carried out despite such information.

57. That in July 2003, TEAM determined that some of the work it had anticipated losing would not actually be lost. At that time, TEAM determined that it needed to hire. Engen was

instructed to start by calling former employees from the termination list, starting with the

highest ranked person terminated, and invite those persons to re-apply for work as machinists with TEAM Park Rapids. Eleven employees, including Plaintiff, were called and asked to

complete an employment application. The Plaintiff was invited to apply on July31, 2003.

The call to the Plaintiff merely told him that there were openings and that he could apply for ajob at TEAM. Ms. Engen did not tell the Plaintiff which positions were open or which shift they were on.

58. That of the eleven former employees who were asked to reapply, seven were over the age of

40. Tn fact, six were oveE the age of 50. Only four filled out applications. The four employees who actually applied were all offered 3obs. Three accepted and began working for TEAM. Plaintiff was again asked to reapply in September of 2003. He again did not apply at that time. It is possible that the Plaintiff could have been employed by TEAMPark Rapids-DL as early as August 1, 2003, if he had applied.

16

59. That thePlaintiff eventuallytook a part-time job with Home Depot, in November 2004. Although Plaintiff had the opportunity to apply for full-time status with Home Depot in March 2005, at the time of trial he has not converted his employment into full time employment, and he testified that he is unsure whether he will do so in the future.

60. That there was testimony from the Plaintiff that his supervisor Wally Knapp referred to him as “old man” and “old guy” on occasions. Mr. Knappalso referred to Stan Burkman as “Papa.” These comments were viewed by Mr. LaBonte at the time they were made as good natured and just joking around. It was not until the layoff and ensuing litigation that Mr. LaBonte questioned whether the comments by his supervisor weighed into his rating during the implementation of the forced ranking tool. Wally Knapp denied making any such comments to or about Mr. LaBonte. The majority of the supervisors and managers performing the ratings of the employees at TEAM, including Knapp, were in their 20s or 30s. The available workforce in Hubbard County has approximately 67% of its workers over the age of forty, while TEAM, even prior to the terminations, had only 44% of its workers in the over 40 group.

• 61. That upon cross-examination regarding “red flags” in the terminations data for the Park

• Rapids layoffs, Mr. Christianson stated that it did appear that a larger percentage of workers in their 50s and/or 60s were included in the termination, more than people in their 30s or 20s. He also stated that he had not seen that data at the time of the terminations and that it was Human Resources would have monitored the data for that type of problem.

From the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

17

1 That the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), at Minnesota Statutes § 363A 08, Subdivision 2, (b)-(c), makes it an unfair employment practice for an employer, because of age, to “discharge an employee” or “discriminate against a person with respect to hiring, tenure, compensation, terms, upgrading, conditions, facilities, or privileges of employment” The MIHRA recognizes both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories to prove discrimination. The Plaintiff has proceeded on both theories in the present case.

2. The Plaintifflemployee may prove a claim of disparate treatment based on a protected classification, such as age, either by direct or circumstantial (indirect) evidence. See Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717, 722-724 (Mi In the present case, the Plaintiff has mainly presented indirect, circumstantial evidence to support his disparate treatment case. The Plaintiff did testif that his supervisor, Wally Knapp, had called him “old guy” and “old man” and that Knapp referred to a co-worker as Papa. These comments were not tied to the decision-making process, except for the fact that they were made by Mr. LaBonte’s supervisor. Mr. LaBonte did not consider the comments to be derogatory until he considered, after the terminations, that this type of reference to an older worker could have affected his rankmg because Knapp performed the initial rating of the Plaintiff This evidence on the part of the Plaintiff is more circumstantial than direct.

3 Where direct evidence is lacking, Minnesota courts apply the three-part, burden-shiftmg analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct’. 1817, 1824-25, 36 L.BcL2d 668 (1973), to analyze claims arising under the MHRA. Dietrich v. Canadian Pac. Ltd. 536 N?W.2d 319,, 323 (Minn.1995). Under the burden-shifting analysis, the burden of production shifts, but the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff. Goins 635 N.W.2d at 724 (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc. 530 U.S. 133, 142-43, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2106, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2001)). The employee bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Sigurdson v. Isanti County 386 N.W.2d 715, 720 (Minn.l986). The requirements for establishing a prima facie case, however, vary depending on the circumstances involved.

18

McDonnell Douglas 411 U.S. at 80211. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 182411. 13: Tn casesinvolving employee layoffs, the analysis requires a showing that age was a factor in the termination. See Dietrich 536 N.W.2d at 324 (adoptirig modification of McDonnell Douglas analysis set forth in Holley v. Sanyo Mfg. 771 F.2d 1161, 1165-66 (8th Cir.1985) for reduction in force cases). Nonnally, to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a plaintiff must establish (1) that he was a member of the protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the position from which he was discharged, (3) that he was discharged, and (4) that the employer assigned a nonmember of the protected class to do the same work. Elliott v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 967 F.2d 1258, 1260 (8th Cir.1992); Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701, 711 (Minn.1992). However, when the plaintiffs discharge takes place in the context of a reduction-in-force, the fourth element is modified because the plaintiffs position will normally not be filled due to the nature of a reduction-in-force. See Dietrich 536 N.W.2d at 324-327. Instead, the former employee’s duties will be redistributed to other employees, therefore, to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination in a reduction-in-force termination, a plaintiff is also required to make “some additional showing” that age was a factor in the employer’s decision to eliminate his position. Id. The “additional showing” may take many forms and is not intended to be overly rigid. Dietrich 536 N.W.2d at 325-326 (citing Holley 771 F.2d at

• 1166). In the present case, Ivfr. Labonte, who was 60 years old at the time of his termination, has established that he is a member of a protected classification, under the MIHRA, as a worker over the age of majority. He has also demonstrated that he was qualified for and

• cmployed in the position from which he was disbharged. The Plaintiff was qualified to perform the job with TEAM prior to any. reduction in force at TEAM, he performed his job satisfactorily and recejved satisfactory performance reviews, and therefore he has met the second prong (that he was qualified, for the position) of the prima facie case. The Plaintiff has also established that he was discharged/terminated by the Defendant pursuant to the reduction in force and therefore meets the third prong of the prima facie case (that he was

19

discharged/suffered adverse employment action). The Plaintiff must then present additional

•evidence that age was a factor in his termination. Mr. LaBonte has satisfied this requirement through statistical and circumstantial evidence showing that age was a factor in his tennination. The Plaintiff has shown a statistical analysis by his expert witness that concluded that three of the criteria were subjective, age was negatively correlated with the scores for employees on the forced ranking, and that his standard deviation analysis showed age was a factor in the terminations. Additionally, the Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Coumbe, testified that the forced ranking tool should not be 100% of the basis for an employee’s termination and acknowledged that the criteria of “promotability” should not be used in a termination situation. The Plaintiff has established his prima facie. case under McDonnell Douglas

4. Once the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Here, TEAM has presented the reduction in force for economic reasons as its justification. TEAM has pointed to the poor ècoñomic performance and declining sales revenue at the time of the layoffs as evidence that a reduction in force was necessary for economic reasons. The need for a reduction in force is a satisfactory legitimate non-discriminatory reason presented by the Defendant for termination of the Plaintiff.

5. Because the Defendant has proffered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating the Plaintiff, to succeed, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. This can be done by directly persuading the Court that a discriminatory reason likely motivated the Defendant, or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. The Plaintiff, Mr. LaB onte, has shown evidence that the criteria were not applied in a uniform manner and that the criteria (apart from length of service) were applied subjectively. The Plaintiff presented evidence that the previous methods of evaluating employees were thrown out, the three subjective criteria in the forced choice tool were incapable of precise definition by the raters,

20

that the ranking score were negatively correlated. with age, that there were irregularities and

• exceptiOns in the rankings, and that the Defendant’s witnesses had changing or multiple

• explanations for these exceptions. He has also demonstrated that the Defendant implemented a toOl to carry out the layoffs that evenits own expert stated should not have been 100% of basis of the decision to terminate the Plaintiff. Dr. Coumbe’s affidavit and testimony indicate that his, and the Defendant’s, goal was to create a system where the employees were ranked from most crucial to least crucial to the organization, but by implementing a system where the employees ranking was negatively correlated with age, the least crucial employees were generally the older ones. The Plaintiff has met his burden of proof and established that age discrimination was a causative factor in the decision to terminate him.

6. That disparate impact cases are specifically addressed by the MHRA at Minnesota Statutes §

363A.28, Subdivision 10, which reads: “If the complaining party has met its burden of showing that an employment practice is responsible for a statistically significant adverse impact on a particular class of persons protected by section 363A.08, subdivision 2 an employer must justify that practice by demonstrating that the practice is manifestly related to the job or significantly furthers an important business purpose. Upon establishment of this justification, the charging party may prevail upon demonstration of the existence of a comparably effective practice that the court finds would cause a significantly lesser adverse impact on the identified protected class.”

7. The Plaintiff has shown statistical evidence demonstrating that the forced ranking tool had a significant adverse impact on workers over 40, which increased as age increased. The Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Martin, testified that that the odds of an employee being terminated in the Defendant’s reduction in force, via the forced ranking tool, increased with age. Dr. Martin found that the actual terminations that occurred differed from what the expected terminations would be, if age was not a factor, by more than two standard deviations. Dr. Martin testified that the data (Park Rapids terminations), to a reasonable statistical certainty, using generally accepted methodolOgies recognized by. statisticians, constitutes a statistically

21

significant adverse impact Of over 2.6 standard deviations, with less than a 1% chance that discrimination based on age (for those over 40) was not a factor in the terminations. For those over 50 years old, the data reflected 4.25 standard deviations from what would be expected if age discrimination were not a factor in the terminations. The Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that the forced ranking tool is responsible for a statistically significant adverse impact on a particular class of persons based on age.

8. That, because of the statistical evidence presented by the Plaintiff, the Defendant employer must justify that practice by demonstrating tF the practice is manifestly related to the job or significantly furthers an important business purpose. TEAM points to the need for a reduction in force to reduce costs and continue successfully operating as the important business purpose that was furthered via the implementation of the forced ranking tool. There was little evidence presented indicating that the forced ranking, which negatively effected older workers, sign ficantly furthered an important business purposes. The Plaintiff presented evidence that the layoffs where the toll was not used were not carried out in a discriminatory fashion. The tool was of questionable validity and utility with all of its exceptions, inconsistencies, and discriminatory effect. It was not clear to the raters who testified what exactly the forced ranking and its subjective categories (other than length of service) were attempting to measure. The result was the implementation of a tool that put all of the emplOyees on a relative scale where age was correlated with low scores. Even if the forced ranking tool was “manifestly related to the job or significantly furthers an important business purpose,” the Plaintiff has posited numerous alternatives to the use of the forced ranking tool as it was implemented in the present case. The Plaintiff correctly points ‘out, that the Defendants had been improving the job evaluations of employees for some time prior to the terminations and these performance appraisals by the individual employees’ managers could have been averaged and weighted. But even more importantly, the Defendant’s could have created a less subjective system with checks and safeguards in place to prevent the kind of adverse effect based on age that was present in the implementation of the forced ranking

22

tool at Park Rapids. The Defendants own termination of workers during the layoffs without using the forced ranking tool resulted in a less discriminatory, and just as effective, alternative to the forced ranking tool.

9. The Plaintiff has shown statistical evidence demonstrating that the forced ranking tool implemented had a significant adverse impact on workers over 40, which increased as age increased and has therefore proven his disparate impact claim against the Defendant pursuant to the frameworkset forth in Minnesota Statutes § 363A.28, Subdivision 10.

10. The court awards the Plaintiff back pay in the amount of $85,800.00 minus the amount he earned ($6,582.00) during that time (2 1/2 years), plus prejudgment interest, for a total award of back pay in the amount of: 82,650.00. This amount is based on the Plaintiff’s yearly salary, as established by the evidence adduced at trial: $28,600.00, plus benefits, $5,720.00, equaling $34,320.00 in lost income per year for 2 and a half years. The Court does not find that a multiplier for the back pay damages is appropriate in the present case.

11. That the Court, as reinstatement of the Plaintiff is not practical, finds an award of front pay is appropriate. The Court finds that 5 years of front pay is appropriate and awards the Plaintiff front pay in the amount of $171,600.00. This amount was, arrived at by taking the Plaintiff’s yearly salary and multiplying it by 5 years. The Court does not find that a statutory multiplier for the front pay damages is appropriate in the present case.

12. That the Court finds that there is no award of damages for emotional distress or punitive damages as minimal, if any evidence was submitted regarding these amounts. This brings the total damages awarded to the Plaintiff in this matter, in awards of back pay and front pay, to a total award of $254,250.00.

13. The Court awards the Plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees. The Plaintiff shall submit within thirty days of receiving this order its reasonable attorney fees. The Defendant shall have twenty days to respond.

14. That the Plaintiff is further awarded costs and disbursements as allowed by law.

23

ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

LET THE JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED:

/

BY THE COURT

ay Môndr$

Ju e of District Court

I hereby certif that the above Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and Judgment constitute the Judgment and Decree of the Court.

DATED:

2006

Ci

24

TEAM ORDERED TO PAY $255,000

TEAM ordered to pay $255,000 in age discrimination caseBy HEATHER LEINENForum Communications Co. - 02/15/2006
In a case that could have ramifications for laid-off Detroit Lakes workers, District Judge Jay Mondry has ordered TEAM Industries to pay a former employee nearly $255,000 for age discrimination.
The discrimination lawsuit, brought by Edward LaBonte, 62, of Park Rapids, began in June. Over 11 days throughout June, July and August, Mondry heard arguments from TEAM’s attorney, Alec Beck of Minneapolis, and LaBonte’s attorney, Stephen Cooper, Minneapolis, former Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights.
“We are pleased that Mr. LaBonte had the opportunity to be heard and fairly decided,” Cooper said Monday. “We remain disappointed TEAM acted in the way it did and are pleased (LaBonte) had a just result. We certainly hope other employers remember value and importance of their skilled older workers and will look to this case as a reminder of that.”
Tuesday, TEAM released this official statement on the case:
“TEAM Industries is disappointed in the court’s decision. We are confident that TEAM did nothing wrong or illegal with respect to Mr. LaBonte’s employment. We also believe the court’s decision contains errors and we anticipate filing an appeal. TEAM Industries is proud of its treatment of its employees and continues to have as its business mission, ‘the creation and maintaining of jobs in central and northern Minnesota.’”
LaBonte claimed TEAM Industries of Park Rapids discriminated against him and other older workers during a round of layoffs in April 2003, in which many of the 32 terminated employees were over the age of 50. TEAM insisted the layoffs were non-discriminatory and were necessary due to a work shortage.
To determine which workers to cut, TEAM used a “forced ranking” tool, in which every employee is compared to every other employee individually. LaBonte was ranked in the bottom 25 percent of employees and was therefore terminated. However, by every indication, he was a good worker; co-workers and supervisors testified he was skilled, qualified and did not have any disciplinary or production problems.
In his decision, Mondry said there was little evidence presented indicating forced ranking significantly improved financial or working conditions at TEAM and questioned the system’s validity.
Mondry also said analysis of the data showed age was indeed a factor in the terminations. While six people under age 29 were let go in 2003 — 10 percent of that total age group employed at TEAM — five workers over 60 years old were fired, or 62 percent of that age group at TEAM.
Further, Mondry found that prior to the terminations, a report was prepared that indicated 21 employees who were to be terminated were over age 40, but the terminations were carried out anyway.
The court awarded LaBonte back pay in the amount of $82,650, “front pay” in the amount of $171,600 (Labonte’s previous salary multiplied by five years) and attorney’s fees.
At the TEAM plant in Detroit Lakes, the same ranking system was used to determine who would be laid off. The Detroit Lakes layoff was implemented on the same day — April 7, 2003 — as was the Park Rapids layoff.
Fourteen employees were laid off at Detroit Lakes, reducing the workforce from 112 to 98, according to a post-trial brief from Beck.
(Heather Leinen writes for the Park Rapids Enterprise)

TEAMS RESPONSE

TEAM defends
its actions
TEAM Industries would like to expound on its official statement released Feb. 15, 2006, regarding the court’s decision in the case, LaBonte v. TEAM Industries, et al. First, to reiterate, we are confident that TEAM did nothing wrong or illegal with respect to Mr. LaBonte’s employment. Furthermore, after reviewing the court’s decision, we are confident that TEAM will be able to prevail on appeal.
TEAM is particularly disappointed that the decision failed to note that TEAM Industries-Park Rapids attempted, on two separate occasions, to rehire Mr. LaBonte, but that each time, Mr. LaBonte refused to apply for work. During this recall process, each employee who was recalled and actually applied for work was given a job. This recall was consistent with TEAM’s mission of providing jobs and job opportunities for workers in northern and central Minnesota.
The court’s decision further failed to take into account the fact that the downsizing system used by TEAM Industries resulted in an increase in the average age at TEAM’s Detroit Lakes facility.
Because of these and other issues, TEAM will be aggressively pursuing an appeal of the court’s decision.
TEAM Industries is proud of its treatment of its employees. As a leading engineering and custom manufacturing company, we remain committed to providing employment in central and northern Minnesota through our facilities in Audubon, Bagley, Baxter, Cambridge, Detroit Lakes and Park Rapids.
Jim Russ, TEAM Industries director of corporate
development

TEAM STILL DOESN'T GET IT

TEAM Industries
still doesn’t get it
It is unfortunate that TEAM Industries has learned so little from the recent court case. The evidence revealed TEAM laid off skilled, older workers with excellent skills and loyal service and kept younger, brand new employees with little or no previous experience. In Park Rapids, 72.7 percent of those terminated by their forced choice tool were over 40, but only 40.4 percent of the people in those jobs were over 40. The chances of being terminated if you were in your 20s or 30s, was only about 7 percent, but if you were 60, it was 10 times that or 75 percent.
The testimony revealed if the first deselection list was used, Mr. LaBonte would not have been terminated. But replacement list after replacement list was used, constantly changing who would be terminated. TEAM Industries did not follow its own deselection tool, but granted exemption to whomever it wished.
Even before the layoff in issue here, the age of TEAM’s workforce was substantially below what one would expect it to be if age was not a factor in hiring and firing employees.
Expert testimony revealed that the layoff was extremely unlikely to have occurred as it did if age was not a factor. TEAM’s own expert testified TEAM had not followed recognized procedures to assure a non-discriminatory termination.
After Mr. LaBonte was terminated, he was never offered a new position by TEAM.
It is unfortunate that TEAM still publicly attacks a person who it admits was a hard-working, effective employee for them. Mr. LaBonte deserves an apology, not further attack.
While TEAM takes shots at Mr. LaBonte and the court’s decision, Mr. LaBonte and the other fired workers, continue to suffer. Being disappointed or even angered by a court decision that does not go as you would hope, is understandable, but failing to learn, grow and change from it, is not. TEAM needs to rise up and be the employer it claims to be and take the hard steps necessary to assure that it does not devalue and discriminate against older workers.

Stephen W. Cooper, Esq.

The Cooper Law Firm, Chartered