Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CHAUDHRY v. NUCOR STEEL  (October 15, 2008)

Subhash Chaudhry has worked at Nucor, which manufactures rolled steel sheets, since 1988. In 2007, he worked as a Quality Control Inspector (“QCI”). [The following are allegations of the complaint, taken as true.] His responsibilities included inspecting the rolled steel sheets produced at the temper mill. Nucor increased the pay grades of some QCIs in 2003, but not those, like Chaudhry, who worked at the temper mill. Chaudhry’s complaints fell on deaf ears. Chaudhry complained that some of his co-workers made fun of him and called him names. Those complaints were ignored as well. Chaudhry also tried to improve his salary through a program in which QCIs who attended a training session and made four customer visits in a year could qualify for a pay grade increase. Chaudhry frequently asked for opportunities to make a customer visit.  Nucor controlled the visits and never gave him such an opportunity. On July 28, 2006, Chaudhry filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. He alleged that Nucor’s failure to give him the pay raise that they gave other QCIs amounted to discrimination against him on account of his race, religion, and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He further stated that Nucor had prevented him from making customer visits and qualifying for a pay grade increase. In a later letter to the EEOC, he complained of the harassment. On February 7, 2007, Chaudhry filed suit alleging that Nucor violated Title VII by: a) raising the salaries of other QCIs whose jobs required less effort, b) informing other QCIs of customer visit opportunities, and c) failing to control the employees’ harassment of him. Nucor initially answered the complaint. A few months later, however, the Supreme Court decided Ledbetter. Nucor, relying on Ledbetter, asked the district court to dismiss the complaint. The court agreed and dismissed the pay discrimination claim. It also dismissed the harassment claim, holding that it was not a part of the EEOC charge and Chaudhry’s letter did not expand the scope of the charge. The court then dismissed the case and entered final judgment (the same day) without addressing the customer visit charge. Chaudhry attempted to amend his complaint to add a § 1981 claim. Nucor objected because judgment had already been entered. In his reply, Chaudhry asked the court to treat his motion as a motion to amend the judgment. The court apparently did so but treated the date of the reply brief as the date of the motion and denied it as untimely. Chaudhry appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court began its analysis with Title VII and Ledbetter. Before filing a Title VII complaint, an employee must file a charge with the EEOC. The charge must be filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The alleged unlawful employment practice, under Ledbetter, is the single, discrete unlawful act at issue, even if the effects of the act continue with each paycheck. The Court agreed with the conclusion of the district court that the discrete act with respect to the raise claim was Nucor’s June, 2003 decision to give raises to the other QCIs. Since Chaudhry did not file his charge within 300 days of that date, the district court correctly dismissed this claim.

With respect to the customer visit claim, however, the same analysis produced a different result . The Court observed that Chaudhry’s EEOC charge and complaint alleges that Nucor denied him a raise every year by preventing him from participating in customer visits. Each of those decisions was a new violation. Since Chaudhry filed his charge within 300 days of the last of those acts, his customer visit claim is not time-barred by Ledbetter. The Court also rejected Nucor’s claim that its alleged failure to notify Chaudhry of a customer visit opportunity was not a materially adverse employment decision. The failure to notify deprived Chaudhry of compensation which he would have earned, at least as the complaint reads, but for the failure.

The Court commented on the pleading amendment dispute as well, although the remand eliminated any need to decide the issue. The Court criticized the district court, referring to its actions in entering judgment on the same day it granted the motion to dismiss as “unorthodox” and its handling of the motion to reopen as “hyper-technical.”