Two Plausible Explanations For Firing Preclude Summary Judgment
EGAN v. FREEDOM BANK (October 6, 2011)
.jpg)
Freedom Bank president Greg Dempsey hired Belinda Egan as a vice president in July 2007. According to her complaint, Egan met with Don Burton, a bank director, at his request several times over the next few months. At one of those meetings in September, Burton told Egan that he thought she should be the next bank president and that the directors had the power to fire anyone on the management team. He then made a sexual advance. Egan left but later discussed the conversation with Dempsey and Human Resources. Burton resigned shortly thereafter. The bank hired Dave Barajas to replace Greg Dempsey as president. According to Dempsey, Barajas told him that he had heard that Egan had done something for which she should have been fired. Barajas took over in December and hired four new employees over the next several months. Then, in February of 2008, Barajas told Egan that he had eliminated her position. Egan brought suit for retaliation, hostile work environment, and gender discrimination. Judge Reinhard (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the Bank. Egan appeals.
In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Williams, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the retaliation claim, which Egan prosecuted under the direct method of proof. The parties agreed that she engaged in statutorily protected activity and suffered an adverse action. The only issue was whether she introduced sufficient evidence of a causal connection between her report of Burton's sexual advances and her termination. Although the Court found the Bank's explanation plausible, it concluded that it was not the only plausible explanation. Several things supported Egan's contention: Barajas' remark to Dempsey, the fact that Egan’s was the only position eliminated while four other positions were filled, and the fact that there were no complaints about her performance. Since a reasonable jury could conclude that the Bank fired her in retaliation for her complaint, the summary judgment was reversed. The Court affirmed summary judgment on both the hostile work environment (a single sexual overture does not establish hostile work environment)and gender discrimination claims (Egan failed to develop this claim below). Finally, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over a magistrate judge's sanctions order that Egan challenges. The magistrate judge has only the power to recommend a sanction (since there was no consent to proceed before the magistrate judge). Since the district court judge never addressed the recommended sanction, it is not reviewable on appeal.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select