Jeffrey Willnerd suffers from a voice condition that makes it difficult for him to speak and to control the tone of his voice. His condition was a topic of discussion with his supervisors yet did not impact his job performance as a bank loan officer/sales representative. In building a case to justify his termination, the bank imposed on Willnerd an impossible to meet production quota, which, along with other factors, led the Eighth Circuit to reverse a summary judgment and remand for trial. Willnerd v. First National Nebraska, Inc., No. 07-3316 (March 13, 2009).
Willnerd developed a voice condition that eventually reduced his voice to "a whisper." His supervisor, the bank president, Keslar, testified that he was "concerned with how customers might view Willnerd." Nonetheless, Willnerd's condition "did not adversely affect his job performance." Nonetheless, Willnerd's employment was terminated by the bank in September 2003.
In February 2002, Willnerd was given an impossible-to-meet production quota. He was required to increase his annual loan volume 100% from $2 million to $4 million.This quota "not only required [Willnerd] to double his annual generation, it required him to single-handedly outperform the entire branch's mortgage-lending volume at a level the branch ultimately failed to achieve at any time prior to or following his termination." Another employee, Spangler, had the same job duties and "identical job description" as Willnerd but was not put on any type of production quota, even though his loan production was inferior to Willnerd's. Nonetheless, in May 2003, Willnerd was put on 90 days probation to increase production and improve his "overall proactive sales effort." Spangler was not put on any such terms, despite his inferior production.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the summary judgment erroneously granted the bank by the lower court, finding sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus and pretext from the following: 1) jurors could view the production quota imposed on Willnerd "as unattainable and as an effort to ensure Willnerd's failure"; (2) inconsistent statements by the bank's upper management as to whether other employees were considered for termination; (3) other purportedly poor performing employees were not subject to quotas or termination; (4) the employee to whom Willnerd's duties were assigned after he was fired failed to perform at Willnerd's level but suffered no adverse consequences; (5) Willnerd outperformed his colleague, Spangler, who suffered no adverse consequences; and, (6) the bank's upper management admitted concern about how customers viewed Willnerd becuase of his voice condition.
