Legal Case Study: Fuller v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co. Inc. - Analysis

This case study analyzes Fuller v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co. Inc., focusing on the plaintiff's termination as part of a Reduction in Force (RIF). The analysis examines the company's justifications for including the plaintiff in the RIF, based on poor attendance and other performance metrics. It delves into the court's support for the company's decision, the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims of racial discrimination, and the court's findings regarding age discrimination and seniority. The study highlights the plaintiff's failure to prove discrimination under relevant legal precedents such as McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. It also explores the plaintiff's inability to demonstrate that other employees in the RIF were treated more favorably, as required by Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc. The analysis references several supporting cases, including Allison v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Silvera v. Orange County Sch. Bd., and Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., to illustrate the legal arguments and outcomes. Overall, the case underscores the importance of proper documentation and non-discriminatory practices in workforce reduction decisions.

Running head: FULLER V.EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO.INC.
FULLER V.EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO.INC.
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1FULLER V.EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO.INC.
Table of Contents
Plaintiff selected to be part of the RIF.......................................................................................3
Court supports the company's decision to list the plaintiff in the RIF.......................................3
Inference of Race for the plaintiff..............................................................................................3
The seniority of plaintiff............................................................................................................3
Plaintiff and other comparators..................................................................................................3

2FULLER V.EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO.INC.
Plaintiff selected to be part of the RIF:
According to the company, the RIF list was prepared to reduce the workforce and the
employees whose names were in the list selected to be terminated based on efficiency,
flexibility, quality of work, attendance, and seniority [Fuller v. Edward B. Stimpson Co.]. A
three pages spreadsheet was prepared based on different race, gender age and year of service
of each employee. In case of the Fuller’s termination, it was based on attendance issue as the
record showed that, in the year 2008, he either came late to work or left the workplace early
on 57 times and this record is materially worse than other employee records in the RIF.
Court supports the company's decision to list the plaintiff in the RIF:
The Company terminated the plaintiff on the ground of his poor attendance in the year
2008. Similarly, the record is showing that the company gave promotion and recognition to
the employee during his work tenure. Most importantly, the company's decision to reduce in
the workforce is legal and based on flexibility, attendance, and seniority of the employees. In
this case, courts upheld the company's decision to terminate the plaintiff based on his poor
records on the above-mentioned areas evaluated by the company.
Inference of Race for the plaintiff:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the following ground.
 Courts found out that Fuller’s allegation of racial discrimination is baseless as the
plaintiff failed to prove that the company discriminated him purely because of his race
[Allison v. Western Union Tel. Co.]. Besides, there was sufficient ground provided by
the Company's President for including the plaintiff's name in the RIF.

3FULLER V.EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO.INC.
 Fuller failed to comply with the guidelines provided in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green while proving the fact of racial discrimination based on circumstantial
evidence.
 The plaintiff failed to meet the guidelines provided in Standard v.A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc.
for workforce reduction, that the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that termination was
based on his or her race and other contenders were treated favorably.
The seniority of the plaintiff:
Fuller contended that he was discriminated against under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967. The court held that Fuller did not comply with the guidelines of
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., which states that age must be the 'but-for' reason for
the employer's decision of termination. Similarly, the court held that the contention of
seniority does not itself establish the prima facie case of discrimination in the case of RIF
[Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.]
Plaintiff and other comparators:
Plaintiff Failed to show that the other ‘comparators’ whose name were in the RIF
were treated favorably [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green]. The court in the case of
Silvera v. Orange County Sch held that the plaintiff's offense must be similar to the other
comparators to establish dissimilar treatment allegations. In this case, the attendance report
clearly shows that no other employee in the list or organization has the worst record of
attendance similar to Fuller. Further, president Scott H. Thomas stated that the three pages
workforce review spreadsheet was properly made and checked thoroughly before the
announcement of termination to ensure a non-biased attitude of the company.

4FULLER V.EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO.INC.
Reference:
Allison v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 680 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir. 1982)
Fuller v. Edward B. Stimpson Co., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (S.D. Fla. 2013)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167
(2009)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)
Silvera v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 1253, 1259 (11th Cir. 2001)
Standard v.A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1331 (11th Cir. 1998)
Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004)

5FULLER V.EDWIN B. STIMPSON CO.INC.
Plaintiff selected to be part of the RIF
Court supports company’s decision to list the plaintiff in the RIF
Inference of Race for the plaintiff
Seniority of plaintiff
Plaintiff and other comparators