Maier was initially employed at the credit union as an internal auditor. He was performing well in that position and promoted to a newly created position as Administrative Services Manager. During the two year period prior to discharge, Maier also received raises in his salary.

Several months prior to Maier’s discharge, other employees noticed that Maier was not completing his assignments on time, did not have necessary communication skills with other employees, lacked good judgment and had poor managerial skills.

Maier alleged that he was terminated due to the fact that he was one-quarter Native American. Maier based this claim on two conversations that allegedly occurred between himself and one of his supervisors. During one alleged conversation, Maier claimed the supervisor referred to him as a “token.” Another alleged conversation concerned a television report on American Indians. Maier acknowledged that these conversations were friendly and omewhat “informative.”

The credit union maintained that Maier was fired because of his credibility problems with the other managers; because of Maier’s incompetence as an administrator; and because the Administrative Services Department was “literally falling apart” due to Maier’s incompetence.

It is noteworthy that Maier was replaced by an individual who reorganized the department, resulting in a financial savings to the credit union of more that $100,000.

The court found that even if the alleged conversations between Maier and a supervisor did in fact take place, those conversations did not rise to a level constituting discrimination. Furthermore, the court found that Maier did not even meet the burden of setting forth a prima facia case against the credit union. In fact, two of the individuals who participated in the decision to terminate Maier, did not even know that he was one-quarter American Indian.

Maier also alleged that the credit union breached an employment contract with him when they fired him.

The court noted, however, that Maier’s employment application stated that the credit union “reserves that right to terminate [his] employment at any time, with or without cause and without prior notice.” The court held that Maier was an employee at will and Maier produced no evidence to refute that conclusion.

The court dismissed both the discrimination claim as well as the breach of employment contract claim and ruled in favor of the credit union. Maier v. Police and Fire Federal Credit Union (E.D. Penn., No. 92-1766).

EDITOR’S COMMENT

The credit union in this case took every possible effort to protect itself from an action of this nature. Maier was given regular evaluations and supervised closely. Although some of Maier’s supervisors wanted Maier fired much earlier, the credit union even gave Maier additional time to try to correct his problems.

Unfortunately, although this credit union attempted to protect itself from a suit of this nature, actions of this type cannot always be prevented. Nonetheless, this credit union’s careful evaluation of the situation and documentation as to Maier’s inability to fulfill his duties resulted in a favorable ruling for the credit union.

Author: Charles R. Harroun