A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to revive a suit filed by Jay Gould, the former CEO of Interface Inc., a flooring manufacturer, seeking a severance package. Interface fired Gould after he went on a drunken rant at a company function and used explicit swear words to describe another employee.
The panel decision characterized Gould’s appeal as an impermissible interpretation of his employment contract, rejecting his argument that Interface had no discretion to determine whether his termination was for cause. According to the appellate panel, Gould had previously conceded during the federal district court proceedings below that Interface had discretion to make that determination. To allow a litigant to flip-flop from one interpretation of the contract to another between the trial and the appellate courts, the panel claimed, would permit him to maintain a position that he already had forfeited by failing to properly raise it at the district court level.
Gould came to work for Interface in 2015 and became CEO in 2017. Although he proclaimed his “phenomenal success” in running the company, he frequently clashed with a member of the board of directors. In 2020, Gould attended a companywide sales meeting in which he became intoxicated and verbally abusive. In response, Interface launched an internal investigation into Gould’s conduct and fired him five days later. Due to the nature of his termination, Interface denied Gould any access to severance or benefits.
Gould sued, alleging that his termination was a pretext for his opposition to discriminatory hiring practices and that members of the board of directors were known to drink and make sexist comments. While Gould agreed that Interface had the discretion to fire him, he argued on appeal that the company had not acted in good faith or fired him for cause. As a result, Gould contended that he was entitled to millions in severance and benefits. The panel’s judges disagreed, finding that he had not raised that interpretation of the contract before the district court and thus could not raise it for the first time on appeal.
The case is Gould v. Interface Inc., Case Number 23-12882, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.
Hall Benefits Law, LLC
