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

HAHN v. TRIUMPH PARTNERSHIPS LLC (March 4, 2009)

Triumph Partnerships acquired some overdue credit card debt from a bank, including a debt owed by Marylou Hahn. Triumph sent a letter to Hahn, stating that she had an "amount due" of $1051.91 and that she had "interest due" of $82.64. Hahn filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hahn alleged, and Triumph conceded, that the $82.64 represented the interest that had accrued only since Triumph acquired the debt. The $1051.91 included interest that had accrued prior to Triumph's acquisition of the debt. Hahn alleged, therefore, that the statement was a false representation of the debt and prohibited by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The District Court granted summary judgment to Triumph. Hahn appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Manion affirmed. The Court concluded that the letter contained no false representation. It held that an “amount” that is due can include principle, interest and other components. The Court specifically pointed out that the letter did not assert that the $82.64 was the totality of the interest that had accrued on the debt since its inception. Since the statement was not false, the Court held that it does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alternatively, the court affirmed on the ground that the statement was immaterial. The Court held that materiality is an element in a §1692e action. Since the letter accurately reported the debt and accurately computed the debt, whether it segregated the post-acquisition interest was immaterial. 

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

FMS, INC. v. VOLVO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED (March 4, 2009)

In 1997, FMS and Samsung entered into a dealer agreement under which FMS was authorized to sell Samsung construction equipment in Maine. The next year, Samsung sold its construction equipment business to Volvo. Volvo acquired the division, the factory, the design, and the franchise relationships -- but not the name. It was only authorized to sell under the Samsung name for three years. Volvo did manufacture and sell equipment under the Samsung name. In short order, however, it redesigned the equipment and rebranded it with the Volvo name. It then terminated the agreements with most of the Samsung dealers. FMS and other dealers brought an action against Volvo, alleging a breach of contract and wrongful termination. The District Court granted summary judgment to Volvo. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed in large part but reversed with respect to FMS's Maine franchise law claim. The Court held that there was a genuine factual dispute about whether Volvo had "good cause" under the Maine statute to terminate the franchise. On remand, a jury found for FMS. Volvo appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner and Sykes reversed and remanded. The court first considered the Maine franchise law. That law requires "good cause" for a manufacturer to terminate a franchisee. A manufacture’s discontinuation of the production of the franchise goods constitutes good cause under the statute. Volvo argued that it's redesign and rebranding of the equipment constituted a discontinuation of the franchise goods. The Court turned its analysis to the statutory definition of “franchise goods.” It found that the definition centered on the grant of a license to use a trademark or trade name. Considering that definition in conjunction with the dealer agreement, which defined the target of the franchise to be “all Samsung construction equipment,” the Court concluded that the contract only covered equipment that was branded Samsung. The Court then addressed whether the contractual inclusion of "later improved or superseding models" in its definition of “product” was enough to include the Volvo equipment. The Court cited the contract interpretation principle that when a contract refers to items “including” other items, the latter must be a subset of the former. It therefore concluded that that phrase included only later models that were branded Samsung. Concluding that the franchise covered only Samsung branded equipment, the Court had little difficulty in finding that Volvo met the good cause requirement when it discontinued the production of Samsung-branded equipment. Volvo is therefore not liable for improper termination under the Maine franchise statute and was entitled to summary judgment in its favor.

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

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (March 2, 2009)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) and the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) entered into a contract for the transportation of coal from Colorado coal mines to WEPCO during the years 1999 -- 2005. The rate that UP could charge WEPCO depended on whether UP was able to reload its empty railcars with shipments of iron ore destined for a steel mill in Utah. The contract provided that UP could charge the higher rate if "an event of force majeure" prevented it from reloading its rail cars with iron ore. The steel mill was bankrupt when the parties entered into the agreement, though still operating. It shut down in 2001, but did not close for good until 2004. UP declared an "event of force majeure" after the mill’s final closure in 2004. WEPCO sued UP for breach of contract, alleging that it was not liable for the higher rate under the contract and that UP failed to perform its contractual obligation to ship requested tonnage to WEPCO. The District Court granted summary judgment to UP. WEPCO appeals

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court first rejected WEPCO’s argument that UP waived its rights by not providing the “prompt notice” required by the contract. UP did not assert its rights upon the plant’s first closing. But the contract included a “no waiver” clause, which provided that a party did not waive a right by not insisting upon it. A no-waiver clause can itself be waived, said the Court, but only with clear and convincing evidence. Such evidence was not present in the case. The Court also noted the lack of any evidence that WEPCO was harmed by the late notice. There was no dispute over the existence of the plant’s closing and WEPCO presented no evidence that it could have developed less expensive alternatives had it been put on notice. The Court even noted that WEPCO saved $7 million due to UP’s decision not to give notice of force majeure in 2001.

The Court also rejected WEPCO’s claim that UP’s failure to ship 100% of its requested tonnage was a breach of the agreement. The contract required UP to make “good faith reasonable efforts” to meet WEPCO’s demand. The Court concluded that UP’s decision to ship to other customers, even ones who might be paying more for the shipments, did not constitute a lack of good faith. A lack of good faith requires evidence of lack of diligence, a willful failure to perform, abuse of power, or interference with performance – none of which were presented here.
 

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM. v. KOENIG (February 26, 2009)

James Koenig was the Chief Financial Officer of Waste Management, Inc. In the early 1990s, after years of acceptable growth, the company’s financial performance began to suffer. Koenig devised several accounting strategies that made the company appear more profitable than it was. Koenig resigned in January of 1997. In October of 1997, the company disclosed in a press release that its financial statements were inaccurate and unreliable. The SEC filed a complaint against Koenig in March of 2002. At trial, the jury found that his accounting strategies were fraudulent. The court imposed a $2.1 million civil penalty, ordered the disgorgement of almost $1 million in bonuses, imposed $1.2 million in pretax interest, and enjoined Koenig from serving as a director of a public company. Koenig appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Wood affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first addressed Koenig's statute of limitations argument. Although recognizing that the statute is five years and that more than five years passed between Koenig's resignation and the filing of the complaint, the Court rejected Koenig's argument. Instead, the Court noted that there has long been a special rule for statutes of limitations in fraud cases. A victim of fraud has the full statutory time to file, beginning from the date the wrong came to light or would have with due diligence. Since Koenig's accounting misdeeds were not public until the company issued its press release and Koenig never claimed that the SEC could have known earlier, the complaint was timely. The Court then addressed several trial management objections. It concluded that the lower court did not err in allowing the SEC to put on evidence of the motives of the company's new management. Although originally denying the SEC's motion in limine, the lower court admitted motive evidence after Koenig "opened the door." The court had warned Koenig that it would allow the evidence if Koenig made motive at issue. Second, the Court approved of the trial court’s practice of allowing the jurors to submit questions for witnesses and found no abuse of discretion. Third, the Court found no violation of the discovery or notice rules in the SEC's calling as its witness Koenig’s own expert, whom he did not call. Koenig also complains that the $2.1 million penalty was greater than allowed by the statute. The statute limits a penalty to no greater than the greater of $100,000 or the defendant’s pecuniary gain. The court included pre-judgment interest in its calculation of pecuniary gain. The Court approved of this formula. It held that pecuniary gain is the amount the defendant obtained as a result of his fraudulent accounting practices plus any return he could have made by investing that sum, until its disgorgement. The Court did disagree with the district court's computation of Koenig's bonuses. The company awards bonuses based on increases in the company's earnings over the prior year. Based upon the testimony of the SEC's expert, the Court concluded that the company’s corrected earnings increased from 1991 - 1992. The Court remanded for a recalculation of Koenig’s bonuses and, if necessary, a recalculation of the penalties.

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

SHALES v. GENERAL CHAUFFEURS, SALES DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 330 (February 27, 2009)

The losers is in a contested union election sued the winners. The defendants prevailed on all counts. As discovery proceeded during the case, it became apparent that plaintiffs could not support some of their claims. Defendants demanded that some claims be withdrawn, to no avail. Defendants asked for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 and FRCP 11. The court ordered plaintiffs’ attorney, James Banks, to pay $80,000 in sanctions. Banks appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the defendant’s argument that the appeal was not timely. Defendants argued that Bank's motion to reconsider should not have suspended the time for appeal because it lacked merit. The Court declined to adopt such a rule. The actual rule is that the existence of the motion, and not it's merit, is what suspends the time for appeal. The Court then addressed Bank's principal argument -- that the district court should have taken into account his ability to pay in determining a sanction. The Court agreed that Rule 11 requires a court to take into account a sanctioned party’s resources. However, the Court noted that the lower court also imposed sanctions under § 1927, with a finding of bad faith. The Court concluded that tort damage principles apply to a determination of sanctions under § 1927. As such, the measure of damages depends on the victim's loss, not a lawyer's ability to pay.

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

A.T.N., INC. v. MCAIRLAID’S VLIESSTOFFE GMBH & CO. (February 25, 2009)

Yossi Azaraf is the sole shareholder of A.T.N. Azaraf became interested in products manufactured by McAirlaid’s Vliesstoffe GmbH & Co. (“McAirlaid’s”) and its related enterprises. After some negotiations, Azaraf and McAirlaid’s entered into an agreement. The agreement provided that Azaraf wished to develop sales of McAirlaid’s in the U.S., would install manufacturing equipment in the U.S., and would use its best efforts to create a market for McAirlaid’s products in the U.S. In return, A.T.N. got the exclusive right to manufacture the products in the U.S. The agreement also provided that A.T.N.’s customers would “remain exclusive” to A.T.N. as long as A.T.N. purchased product from McAirlaid’s. A.T.N. never set up a manufacturing facility in the U.S. but did procure a customer. After about a year, McAirlaid’s notified A.T.N. that it would no longer provide the product. It then notified the customer that it would have to purchase the product directly from McAirlaid’s. A.T.N. brought suit, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The lower court granted summary judgment to McAirlaid’s. A.T.N. appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Evans and Tinder affirmed. The Court noted the dispute regarding the meaning of the “remain exclusive” clause but concluded that it need not decide that issue. Under Illinois law, a contract that lacks a duration term is generally terminable at will by either party. The agreement between A.T.N. and McAirlaid’s did lack such a term and is therefore terminable at will. The Court recognized one exception to that general rule – when a contract is terminable upon the occurrence of an event. Here, either party could end the contract simply by not performing. Either party’s non-performance is not the kind of specific event that would bring the contract out of the terminable at will category.

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

LINDQUIST FORD v. MIDDLETON MOTORS (February 25, 2009)

The Hudson brothers owned and operated Middleton Motors, Inc. (“Middleton”), a Ford dealership. The company was experiencing significant financial difficulties and sought assistance from Lindquist Ford, a dealership in a neighboring state. They discussed the possibility that Craig Miller, Lindquist’s manager, could help manage the operation. They also discussed the possibility of a cash infusion from Lindquist. In April 2003, the parties agreed that Miller would begin working at Middleton on a part-time basis and, in fact, he began working at Middleton on April 21. The parties had not yet reached an agreement although there was an understanding that Miller’s compensation would be based on net profits. Further discussions continued regarding a cash infusion by Lindquist and an understanding of Miller’s compensation but an agreement was never reached. Middleton fired Miller almost a year after he started – without any compensation having been paid or any cash infusion by Lindquist. Lindquist brought an action for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. After a bench trial, the court found for Lindquist on both counts and awarded $152,332 in damages. Middleton appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Sykes and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court first noted some confusion in Wisconsin case law on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit and reviewed the fundamentals of the claims. Both quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are quasi-contractual remedies applicable only when there is no enforceable contract. Both are governed by equitable principles in Wisconsin. The elements of unjust enrichment are: a) a benefit to the defendant by the plaintiff, b) appreciation by the defendant of the benefit, and c) retention of the benefit where it would be inequitable to retain it without payment. The measure of damages is the value of the benefit. Quantum meruit, on the other hand, does not require a benefit to be conferred on the defendant and damages are determined by the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services. Its elements are: a) proof that the defendant asked for the services of plaintiff, and b) proof that plaintiff reasonably expected compensation. The Court also discussed the Wisconsin case law regarding implied-in-fact contracts, which are different from quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, because it believed the trial court’s confusion stemmed from it. With respect to the quantum meruit claim, the Court concluded that the district court improperly relied on Wisconsin implied-in-fact contract principles. For example, the court excluded evidence of the contract negotiations, deeming them irrelevant because it was not a contract case. The Court disagreed, holding that, although not a contract case, evidence of the negotiations was relevant to the reasonable expectations of the plaintiff. With respect to the unjust enrichment claim, the lower court did properly identify the elements of the claim but the Court determined that it misapplied the equity element. The lower court looked only at the fact that Miller worked for eleven months without pay. The Court concluded that the inquiry should be much broader – the parties had significant negotiations about their expectations for Miller’s compensation and the need for a cash infusion. Again, much of the relevant evidence was disallowed by the court.

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

KURZ v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CO. (February 23, 2009)

Kurz and Heinzl both invested in portfolios managed by Fidelity Management & Research Co. (“Fidelity”). Apparently, some Fidelity employees placed trades with Jeffries & Co. in return for kickbacks from Jeffries. The SEC initiated a proceeding under the Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisors Act. Fidelity and the SEC entered into a consent decree. Kurz and Heinzl thereafter filed a class-action suit in state court, alleging that the employees’ conduct resulted in a breach of contract by Fidelity. Fidelity removed to federal court on the basis that their failure to disclose the employees’ misconduct was a securities law issue. The district court denied Kurz’ motion to remand and entered judgment for Fidelity. Kurz appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Sykes and Kendall affirmed. The Court referred to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (the “Act”). The Act generally bars class actions based on state law which allege an omission of a material fact “in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security. The Court noted that there are exceptions to the bar (like a derivative action) but Kurz did not invoke any exception. Instead, his position was that the claim was a contract claim -- not one for a misrepresentation or omission. The Court agreed that a true action for breach of contract would not be barred by the Act but concluded that Kurz could not maintain an action for breach of contract. The principal reason for his inability to do so was the complete absence of any promise made by Fidelity to Kurz.

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

WAHL v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. (February 23, 2009)

Barbara Wahl accumulated a small balance on her credit card. When she stopped using it, the balance was less than $100. Unfortunately, Wahl incurred some huge medical bills and never paid off the credit card. By the time the card issuer turned it over to Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Midland”) in 2005 for collection, the balance (with interest and late fees) had risen to $1149.09. In February 2005, Midland sent a letter to Wahl and offered to settle for a 25% discount. When Wahl did not accept the offer, Midland sent letters again in April and August. In each of those letters, Midland included an itemization of the amount owed. In each, it referred to the $1149.09 as the “principal balance” and the rest as “accrued interest.” Wahl filed a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). She alleged that Midland’s inclusion of interest charged by the card issuer before the debt was purchased by Midland as part of the stated “principal balance” was false and a violation of the FDCPA. The district court certified the class and granted summary judgment to Midland. Wahl appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Evans and Williams affirmed. The Court first took issue with Wahl’s assertion of law that a collection letter which is false, even if not deceptive, is a FDCPA violation. The Court stated that a collection letter does not violate the FDCPA unless it would confuse the unsophisticated consumer – even if is false. The Court went further, though. It determined that the letters were not false. Since Midland had acquired the debt from the issuer, the Court decided that the $1140.09 was all “principal” from Midland’s perspective. Finally, the Court applied the unsophisticated consumer test and found that there was “no way” that the language of the letter could be confusing.

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

GOLDEN YEARS HOMESTEAD v. BUCKLAND (February 19, 2009)

Golden Years Homestead, Inc. (“Golden Years”) operates a nursing facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In early 2000, the Indiana Department of Health (“IDH”) conducted an annual certification inspection, as required by Golden Years’ participation in the Medicaid program. The inspection took place over a span of ten days. At some point during the inspection, the inspection team became upset with the conduct of the Golden Years’ team. From then on, the inspection team became loud, overly critical, hostile and accusatory. The team left information favorable to Golden Years out of its report. Golden Years was cited for seventeen violations. After a six-day evidentiary hearing and administrative appeals, all but one of the citations was reversed. Golden Years brought a lawsuit against the inspectors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations and state law claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the inspectors. Golden Years appeals the dismissal of the state law claims.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Golden Years’s complaint that the court dismissed the state law claims sua sponte. The Court disagreed. Although the inspectors did not specifically address the state law issues in their motion, they did ask for all counts to be dismissed. Furthermore, Golden Years actually addressed the state law counts in its response. The lower court acknowledged the general rule that a court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are dismissed before trial. The Court approved the lower court’s invocation of the exception to the rule when the state law claims are meritless. On the substance of the malicious prosecution claim, the Court stated that Golden Years was required to prove malice. Although it seemed to accept that the inspectors’ conduct was overzealous and unprofessional, the Court concluded that the evidence did not support personal animosity or malice. Similarly, the Court concluded that the evidence of hostility and rancor was insufficient to establish the ulterior motive requirement for abuse of process.

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

SCHMUDE v. TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC. (February 17, 2009)

Kevin Schmude, a 350-pound man, was working on a construction project. He climbed an 8-foot ladder manufactured by Tricam Industries, Inc. (Tricam) to in order to inspect electrical connections in the space above a ceiling. He and the ladder collapsed onto the floor. One of the rivets designed to secure the rear leg was found on the floor. The leg itself had separated from the ladder. A jury found for Schmude and awarded $677,000 in damages. Tricam appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court first summarily rejected Tricam’s arguments concerning a minor discrepancy between plaintiff’s expert’s report and testimony and the expert’s demonstration using the ladder. The Court gave greater consideration to Tricam’s objection to the limitations the trial court put on its ability to impeach Schmude with evidence of a prior conviction. Schmude had been convicted in 1995 of the sale, by a felon, of firearms without a license. F.R.E. 609(b) allows evidence of the conviction of a felony more than ten years old for impeachment purposes only when the probative value outweighs the possible prejudice. The trial court ruled that Tricam could impeach Schmude with evidence of the conviction, but would not allow evidence that the felony was actually predicated on yet another, earlier felony. The Court appreciated the significance of the issue – Schmude’s testimony was the only direct evidence of the cause of the fall and the extent of his pain. The Court also appreciated the trial court’s dilemma – without approaching the issue the way he did, the jury would either hear evidence that Schmude had been convicted of two felonies or would hear no evidence of a conviction. The Court concluded that the trial judge made a reasonable choice under the circumstances. Finally, the Court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to allow Tricam to put on certain evidence of Schmude’s anti-social personality. The Court agreed that the evidence in question had no probative value and would have been extremely prejudicial to Schmude.

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

FRIENDS OF MILWAUKEE’S RIVERS v. MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT (February 13, 2009)

Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers (“FMR”) filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”). FMR alleged that MMSD sewer overflows violated the CWA and MMSD’s permit. Wisconsin sued the MMSD the very same day. MMSD and Wisconsin settled their case soon thereafter. The settlement provided that MMSD would spend over $900 million in upgrades to its sewer system. On MMSD’s motion, the court dismissed FMR’s suit on two bases: the CWA itself and res judicata. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court held that the CWA did not bar the suit because FMR filed first. With respect to res judicata, the Court held that the privity requirement depended on whether the settlement constituted “diligent prosecution,” defined as whether it was “calculated to result in compliance.” The Court remanded to the district court for that determination. After an evidentiary hearing and briefing, the district court found for the MMSD and dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds. FMR appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Cudahy and Wood affirmed. FMR’s main argument on appeal was that the lower court failed to give adequate weight to post-settlement evidence. Principally, FMR argued that massive sewer overflows in 2004 were evidence that the 2002 settlement terms did not result in compliance. The Court first looked at the “central” evidence – i.e., the evidence that existed at the time of the settlement. When the parties act in good faith and address all the known problems and foreseeable consequences, diligent prosecution exists without regard to later events. Turning its attention to post-settlement evidence, the Court found little authority and identified several problems with the consideration of post-settlement evidence. However, it also recognized that post-settlement evidence could be particularly probative of the adequacy of an agreement. The Court rejected the notion that it was wholly irrelevant, but refused to identify any bright-line test for its use. The admissibility and weight of post-settlement evidence will depend on the circumstances of a case. The Court determined that the district court did give adequate consideration to the post-settlement overflows. The district court merely believed the evidence presented by the MMSD that the overflows would not have been violations and that the settlement improvements would have prevented the overflows. The Court also determined that the lower court gave adequate consideration to the post-settlement enforcement activities of Wisconsin.

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

Please welcome Matthew Luzadder, a colleague in my Chicago office, to intheiropinion.com. Matt is my first guest-blogger and contributes the following post for the Antonetti Title VII case.

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

ANTONETTI v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES  (April 21, 2009)

Five technicians employed by Abbott Laboratories left in the middle of their shift one Saturday and went to breakfast. On the following Monday, Scott Antonetti (a white male), Jerald Fuhrer (a white male), Cindy Nadiger (a white female) and Marvin Gloria (a Filipino male) each told a supervisor that he or she had not taken a meal break. Relying on these statements, the supervisor overrode Abbott’s payroll system so that they would be paid as if they had not taken an unpaid break. Juan Luna (a Hispanic male), the fifth employee, did not work on Monday and did not have any communication that day with the supervisor regarding his Saturday shift. Nevertheless, the supervisor overrode the payroll system for Luna as well.

A few months later, Abbott began to investigate instances of employees leaving their weekend shifts for meals. When asked, Luna admitted that the five of them had left Abbott’s campus on that Saturday for breakfast. When the investigators questioned the other four, they stated they did not remember going to the off-site breakfast that day. Because working the Saturday overtime shift and leaving Abbott’s premises in the middle of a shift was unusual, the investigators found it implausible that the four employees did not remember going off-site for a meal during a Saturday overtime shift. In addition, they could remember other details about the Saturday overtime shift. Furthermore, one of them later changed his story and confessed, supposedly on behalf of all of them, to attending the off-site breakfast. Antonetti, Fuhrer, Nadiger and Gloria were terminated for time card fraud. Luna was not terminated. Antonetti, Fuhrer and Nadiger filed suit, claiming they were terminated on account of their race (Caucasian) and national origin (United States). Nadiger also claimed that she was terminated in retaliation for her complaints of sex discrimination. Gloria did not file suit. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Abbott, finding the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facia case of race or national origin discrimination. The plaintiffs appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the elements necessary to present a prima facie case of discrimination under both Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court stated that plaintiffs must prove that: 1) they are members of a protected class; 2) they were performing their jobs satisfactorily; 3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) similarly situated employees outside of their protected class where treated more favorably. Focusing on the fourth element of the discrimination claim, the Court found that the non-terminated employee, Luna, was not similarly situated to the plaintiffs for two reasons. First, Luna never told his supervisor that he did not take a break on the Saturday in question. Second, and most importantly, Luna told the truth when he was approached by the investigator about the off-site meal. Since the plaintiffs could not point to a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably, their claim failed.

Addressing Nadiger’s Title VII claims that she was terminated in retaliation for her past and possible future complaints of sex discrimination in relation to being denied a promotion, the Court stated that there must be a causal link between her complaints of sex discrimination and her termination. The Court found that even if Abbott was partially motivated by Nadiger’s complaints of sex discrimination, it would have nonetheless fired her for time card fraud. Since Abbott had an independent and legitimate reason for firing Nadiger, her separate claim fails as well.

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