Bowman v. 3M Company

WADE BOWMAN
V.
3M COMPANY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:23-CV-5121
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
Before the Court is Defendant 3M Company's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 20) .1 For the reasons explained below, the Motion is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Wade Bowman was hired by 3M in September 2000. During his long
tenure at the company, he worked in various offices around the country and steadily
advanced in title , salary, benefits, and prestige . Finally, in 2016 he was promoted to head
up the Walmart account, 3M 's largest client in terms of sales-dollars. He moved to 3M 's
office in Rogers, Arkansas, and assumed the role of Director of Sales for Walmart/Sam's
Club . About twenty employees worked in the office, four or five of whom reported to
Bowman .
Sometime in December 2021 or January 2022 , Bowman learned that 3M had
opened an ethics investigation targeting him, his supervisor Terry Marquardt, and other
employees on the Walmart sales team . 3M suspected that Bowman , Marquardt, and
others were violating 3M's Code of Ethics by playing golf during the work day and
1 In ruling on the Motion , the Court also considered 3M 's Brief in Support (Doc. 21) and
Statement of Undisputed Facts (Doc. 22) , Plaintiff's Response Brief (Doc. 25) and
Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts (Doc. 26), 3M's Reply (Doc. 30) , and all
evidence attached to the briefing.
1
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

charging non-business expenses , including alcoho l, to 3M, even though no customers
attended these outings and no meeting agendas were prepared in advance. Bowman
recalls being interviewed at least twice , but possibly three times, by 3M's legal counsel in
connection with the ethics investigation . See Doc. 21- 1, p. 13 (Bowman Depa.).
In February 2022, 3M placed Bowman on paid administrative leave, and in March,
3M 's Group President of Consumer Business, Jeff Lavers , made the decision to fire
Bowman (age 49) , Marquardt (age 58) , and two other employees working in the Rogers
office, Trevin Haines (age 48) and Christy Kitchens (age 39) . See Doc. 21-3 , p. 2 (Lavers
Decl.) .2 Lavers asked Brad Graves, the Senior Vice President of Consumer Business for
3M , to deliver the bad news. Graves explained to Bowman the reasons why the company
had decided to fire him, and Human Resources Specialist Shelly Gruber "informed him of
the logistics of the termination ." (Doc. 27 , ,I 57).
Bowman contends that he did not deserve to be fired but admits that 3M gave him
two reasons for its decision : (1) he charged non-business expenses, including the cost of
alcohol on the golf course , to the company in violation of company policy, and (2) he failed
2 Bowman asks the Court to disregard Lavers's Declaration because 3M failed to properly
identify him as a potential witness during discovery. But 3M 's counsel responds that both
parties identified Lavers as a potential witness in their respective initial disclosures in
2023. In fact, Bowman 's disclosures described Lavers as a " 3M Exec VP" who "[w]ould
have had conversations w/ Brad Graves . .. regarding Plaintiff's termination. " (Doc. 30 ,
p. 2) . In addition , both Bowman and Marquardt mentioned Lavers multiple times in their
respective depositions and demonstrated familiarity with his executive role at 3M . See
Docs. 21-1 & 21-2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) only requires a party to disclose
the name, address, and phone number of "each individual likely to have discoverable
information-along with the subjects of that information ." And Rule 26(e) only requires a
party to supplement its witness disclosure if " in some material respect the disclosure or
response is incomplete or incorrect" and "not otherwise ... known to the other part[y]. "
The Court is not persuaded that 3M needed to supplement its initial disclosures to clarify
that Lavers made the final decision to fire Bowman ; identifying Lavers as a person with
knowledge of the termination decision was enough .
2
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

to disclose that he accepted a $35 ,000 pe rsonal loan from a Walmart executive in
connection with the purchase of a home. See Doc. 21-1 , p. 39.
With respect to 3M 's first reason for termination , Bowman admits that he submitted
thirty-six expense reports in 2020 and 2021 for "internal business meetings" that took
place on the golf course. These "internal business meetings" involved only Bowman and
one or two of his officemates. See Doc. 27 , pp . 10-11 . Bowman further admits that he
sought "reimbursement for any alcohol he or others purchased and consumed " at these
"internal meetings ." Id. at p. 9. He also concedes that "[t]here may not have been written
agendas" for the meetings.3 Id. at p. 10 . However, he defends his actions by pointing out
that "at no time prior to his termination was [he] disciplined or reprimanded " and that it
"was commonplace at 3M " to bill the company for food and alcohol consumed at the golf
course . ld. 4
3 Bowman testified that "it was a challenge" to create written agendas for internal business
meetings before they happened , so his usual practice , given "the rigors of work ," was to
write down a meeting 's purpose in the margin of a food and/or alcohol receipt and then
submit it for reimbursement. (Doc. 21-1 , p. 22).
4 During Bowman's deposition, he was asked to explain why 3M 's business benefited
from officemates meeting at the golf course and consuming beer and liquor at 3M 's
expense. The following colloquy ensued :
Q. And 	is there 	any 	reason 	you 	had 	these 	conversations with 	Terry
[Marquardt] and Trevin [Haines] on a golf course as opposed to in the office?
A. To get away from the office , much better environment, more relaxed , you
know, away from-so we could have more personal conversations about
business, multiple different reasons .
Q. Well , at your office when you were worki ng for 3M , did you have a private
office or was everyone out in cubicles and kind of an open floor plan?
A. There was a combination of that. I did have my own office.
3
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3M 's second reason for firing 	Bowman was that "a high-ranking executive at
Walmart who had some responsibility for Walmart's business with 3M " sold her home to
Bowman and "agreed to permit Bowman to pay the balance of the home loan purchase
price (above that for financing-$35 ,000) within a short period of time ." Id. Bowman
agrees those facts 	are 	true; his 	only 	dispute 	is with 	3M 's characterization 	of the
transaction as a "personal loan. " Id.
After Bowman was fired , 3M conducted an open-application process to fill his
position . Several people applied . The person selected for the job was a thirty-eight-year-
old man named Patrick Hiner. Bowman , who was over the age of forty at the time of
term ination , alleges that he was fired due to age discrimination in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A party moving for summary judgment must establish both the absence of a
genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed .
R. Civ. P. 56 . The Court must review the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving
Q. Is there any reason you could not have private conversations with Terry
within a private office within the building?
A. Oh , we did . But again , you know, this is 22 years of working at 3M ,
multiple different golf meetings. That was - 	that was part of the culture . It
was a great opportunity to get a one-on-one conversation , again , during a
four to five-hour period . There's nothing better in my opinion , whether it be
with a customer or whether it be with teammates , it takes people off their
guard, they're more relaxed , you get great conversations about business,
you get the real story versus exactly what's in the office. I mean , there's
multiple different benefits to 3M in having that kind of environment.
(Doc. 21-1 , p. 34).
4
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

party and give that party the benefit of any inferences that can be drawn from those facts .
Canada v. Union Elec. Co ., 135 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (8th Cir. 1997). If the moving party
meets its burden , "the nonmoving party must then come forward with specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial ." Matsushi ta Elec. Indus. Co . v. Zenith Radio
Corp ., 475 U.S. 574,587 (1986) (quotations omitted). "Where the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no 'genuine
issue for trial. "' Id.
"To be material, a fact must 'affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law. "' Torgerson v. 	City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 , 1052 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc ., 477 U.S. 242 , 248 (1986)) . "'The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party' s] position will be insufficient' to
survive summary judgment. " Anderson v. Durham D&M, L.L.C., 606 F.3d 513 , 518 (8th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252). The nonmoving party must instead
produce sufficient evidence "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict" in their
favor. Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc. , 28 F.3d 64 , 66 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Liberty
Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248 (1986)) .
"An age discrimination plaintiff may survive the defendant's motion for summary
judgment either by setting out direct evidence of discrimination or by creating an inference
of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework ." Ram/et v. E.F
Johnson Co. , 507 F.3d 1149, 1152 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) . Here, Bowman has
no direct evidence of discrimination , which means he must meet his initial burden of proof
by establishing a prima facie case. He does this by showing that: (1) he is over forty years
old ; (2) he met the applicable job qualifications; (3) he suffered an adverse employment
5
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

action ; and (4) he was replaced by someone sufficiently younger to permit an inference
of age discrimination. Ram/et v. E.F. Johnson Co ., 507 F.3d 1149 , 1153 (8th Cir. 2007).
For purposes of summary judgment, 3M concedes that Bowman has met these prima
facie elements.
Next, the burden shifts to 3M to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for firing Bowman. See Starkey v. Amber Enters., 987 F.3d 758, 763-64 (8th Cir. 2021 ).
Once that burden is cleared, Bowman must point to facts to show that 3M 's reason "was
mere pretext for discrimination" and that "age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged
adverse employment action ." Id. (quoting Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp ., 670 F.3d 844,
856 (8th Cir. 2012)). The ADEA's but-for standard " is a heightened standard for pretext ,"
meaning that it is more stringent to meet than the mixed-motive analysis used in Title VII
claims . Heislerv. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co ., 931 F.3d 786 , 798 (8th Cir. 2019).
Ill. DISCUSSION
Since Bowman has made out a prima facia case of age discrimination , the burden
shifts to 3M to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing him. As previously
discussed, the company had not one, but two reasons: first, Bowman's admitted practice
of seeking reimbursement for golf course outings with his officemates, and second , his
failure to disclose to 3M that he bought a home contingent on receiving a personal loan
from an executive officer of 3M 's customer. Bowman acknowledges that 3M engaged its
legal counsel to investigate these ethics violations and that three other members of the
Walmart sales team in the Rogers office were fired at the same time , including one
employee under the age of forty.
6
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

Bowman does not dispute that he did a ll these things; he only disputes that his
actions warranted discipline. But the question "i s not whether [3M] made a good decision,
or even a fair one" but "whether it took an adverse employment action based on a
discriminatory animus. " Schaffhauser v. United Parcel Service , 794 F.3d 899 , 903 (8th
Cir. 2015) ; Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F3 .d 782 , 795 (8th Cir. 2011)
("The appropriate scope of investigation is a business judgment, and shortcom ings into
an investigation do not by themselves support an inference of discrimination. "). Lavers
and 	Gruber 	both 	testified 	that 	3M 	terminated 	Bowman's 	employment for 	violating
company policy. That was their good-faith belief as to why he was fired, and Bowman
points to no evidence to the contrary. More to the point, because 3M 's decision does not
suggest any discriminatory animus , the Court cannot second-guess whether the firing
decision was right, just, or fair. "Federal courts do not sit as super-personnel departments
reviewing 	the wisdom or fairness of the business judgments made by employers ."
Guimaraes v. Supervalu, Inc. , 674 F.3d 962 , 977 (8th Cir. 2012) .
Bowman's attempts to show discriminatory animus all fall flat. The mere fact that
he was replaced by a younger employee is of "insufficient probative value to persuade a
reasonable jury that [he] was discriminated against. "' Carraher v. Target Corp., 503 F.3d
714 , 719 (8th Cir. 2007). Bowman lacks evidence of any valid comparator being treated
differently, and instead makes the blanket claim that other high-level executives did the
same or similar things but were not fired. Such a vague allegation is not enough to show
pretext. See McGinnis v. Union Pacific R.R. , 496 F.3d 868 , 876 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming
summary judgment on an age discrimination claim when the plaintiff merely "dispute[d]
7
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

the validity of his [disciplinary] citations" and "claim[e]d other employees who violated
rules were not fired").
Finally, Bowman cannot defeat summary judgment by obseNing that Graves once
referred to him as a "blocker," which in 3M parlance means an employee who has
remained in his current position for a length of time , has significant experience in that
position , and is reluctant to move to another position and/or another office location.
Marquardt testified that he overheard Graves ask whether Bowman was a "blocker"
during a 3M 	leadership meeting 	in a Minneapolis restaurant on January 16 , 2022.
Roughly forty to forty-five 3M executives were present at this meeting. See Doc. 21-2, pp .
8, 34. 	However, context is important, and Marquardt noted that immediately before
Graves asked , " Is [Bowman] a blocker?" several executives nearby had been praising
Bowman and wondering aloud whether he might be a good fit for "probably five or
six .. . jobs outside of Bentonville ," as they "wanted [him] on their team. " (Doc. 21-2 , p.
4) .
The Court takes Bowman 's point that the term "blocker" could correlate with
advanced age. After all , a sought-after, experienced employee who might be labeled a
"blocker" is more likely to be older than younger. However, "[b]ecause age and years of
seNice are analytically distinct, an employer can take account of one while ignoring the
other, and thus it is incorrect to say that a decision based on years of seNice is necessarily
'age based. "' See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 , 611 	(1993). In short,
Graves's use of the word "blocker" to refer to Bowman does not indicate that age was the
but-for reason for his termination. Moreover, this seems to have been a stray remark said
on one occasion-and not in the context of the decision to fire Bowman . "' Stray remarks'
8
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

standing alone do not give rise to an inference of discrimination. " Fitzgerald v. Action, Inc .,
521 F.3d 867 , 876 (8th Cir. 2008).
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Bowman has failed to show that age was the but-for cause of
his termination . Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that 3M 's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 20) is GRANTED , and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment will
enter contemporaneously with this OrdJ .
IT IS SO ORDERED on this~ 	day of January, 2025.
s
ISTRICT JUDGE
9
Case 5:23-cv-05121-TLB Document 48 Filed 01/22/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>