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

AMRHEIN v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORP.  (October 20, 2008)

Kitsy Amrhein was a group specialist in Health Care Service Corp.’s (“HCSC”) Springfield office. Her principal duty was to service employers that have Blue Cross/Blue Shield Insurance. Amrhein and Scott Redpath became group specialists at the same time. In addition to Amrhein and Redpath, the group consisted of six other women. The group all reported to Benner, who reported to Marquedant, who reported to Woods. In late 2002, Amrhein became convinced that Redpath was performing at a lower level than she but receiving preferred treatment. She made her opinion known to others, including Benner, and continued to do so throughout 2003. HCSC disciplined Amrhein twice in 2003, once for disclosing competitive information and once for excessive personal phone use. After the discipline for the telephone use, things started to heat up.

• Amrhein, Brenner, and Marquedant met in early December to discuss the telephone issue. At that meeting, Amrhein first said that she was considering filing an EEOC complaint.
• In December, Marquedant initiated a human resources investigation in response to an Amrhein e-mail complaint. In January of 2005, Amrhein met with Marquedant and the human resources representative. The human resources representative reported that the investigation revealed no evidence of gender discrimination towards Amrhein. Again, Amrhein said she was going to file an EEOC complaint.
• In January, Marquedant monitored a phone conversation where Amrhein revealed what Marquedant believed was confidential information.
• In early February, Woods asked her supervisor for help in dealing with Amrhein. She referred to Amrhein as a “huge challenge,” “disruptive,” and “costing a huge amount of time and resources.”
• At a meeting in February regarding personal time, Amrhein complained about her inability to use some accrued time. Marquedant told Amrhein that she had opened a “can of worms” and that she should not have “made the complaint.” Witnesses stated that Amrhein became very argumentative with Marquedant, but Amrhein denies it.

HCSC terminated Amrhein on March 1 for her insubordination at the February meeting and the improper confidential information disclosure in January. Amrhein brought an action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She alleged that HCSC discriminated against her on the basis of gender and that HCSC retaliated against her because of her complaints about the discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for HCSC. Amrhein appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer and Wood affirmed. Judge Rovner dissented. Amrhein did not appeal the judgment on the discrimination itself so the Court addressed only the retaliation claim. The majority observed that an employee can establish discrimination for opposing an unlawful business practice in two ways. In the first (the direct method), she must show a) a statutorily protected activity, b) the employer’s materially adverse action, and c) a causal connection. The majority concluded that Amrhein’s circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support an inference that her termination was related to her threat to file an EEOC complaint. The Court agreed that the timing of events can provide that inference, but found that the almost three month period between Amrhein’s first “threat” to file a complaint and her termination was too attenuated to do so. In the second (the indirect method), an employee can show a) a protected activity, b) her performance meeting legitimate employment expectations, c) an adverse employment action, and d) less favorable treatment than a similarly situated employee who did not engage in the protected activity. The Court concluded that Amrhein did not identify a similarly situated individual. Such an individual need not be identical, but must be comparable in material respects. None of the three individuals suggested by Amrhein had comparable disciplinary histories. The Court added that even if Amrhein had met her indirect method burden, there was ample evidence to support HCSC’s proffered reasons for the termination.

Judge Rovner dissented, admitting that it was a close case. She focused on the statements of Woods and Marquedant in February, just before the decision to terminate. She believed that they implied a retaliatory intent and that the Court should treat the case as a mixed motive case. In such a case, the employer must prove that it would have made the same decision had it not considered the protected activity. Judge Rovner noted that mixed motive cases are rarely summary judgment cases. Because of the questions of fact regarding whether HCSC would have fired Amrhein absent their unlawful motive, she would remand the case for trial.