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

YANCICK v. HANNA STEEL CORPORATION (AUGUST 3, 2011)

Hanna Steel Corporation employed Matthew Yancick, a white man, for a few years in the mid-2000s. Hanna has a policy prohibiting all forms of harassment and instructs employees to report any harassment to the Human Resource Manager or the General Manager. Yancick signed an acknowledgment of the policy and pledged to follow it. Smith worked with Brad Johnson, an African-American man, while at Hanna. Originally, their relationship was good. It began to deteriorate in early 2005. The two had several confrontations, some of which had racial overtones and some of which did not. Johnson also had confrontations with other employees. Yancick complained at times to his immediate supervisor but never to the Human Resources Manager or the General Manager. In December of that year, Yancick suffered severe and permanent injuries when a steel coil fell on him from a machine operated by Johnson. Yancick asserts that the action was intentional and brought a hostile work environment claim under § 1981. Hanna moved for summary judgment. Yancick moved for and was granted additional time under Rule 56 but was warned by the district court that no additional time would be allowed. With four minutes left in his extension, Yancick filed an oversized brief with a motion for leave to file. He did not file any of the referenced exhibits. A short time later, Yancick filed a substitute response that met all of the page and word limits, again accompanied by a motion for leave to file but again unaccompanied by any exhibits. He finally filed the exhibits a few days later. Judge McDade (C.D. Ill.) denied the motion's, did not consider his response or his disputed facts, and granted summary judgment to Hanna. Yancick appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Wood, Williams, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed the procedural issue and noted that it routinely endorses district courts' strict compliance with local rules. The Court rejected Yancick's argument that he had good cause or that his failure was simply a "requirement of form" under Rule 83. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. On the merits, Yancick must prove that: a) he endured a subjectively and subjectively offensive environment, b) race was the cause, c) the conduct was severe or pervasive, and d) there must be a basis for employer liability. The Court conceded that the record before the coil incident showed that Johnson's conduct was immature and boorish and that he exhibited hostility toward Yancick, but concluded that it did not amount to the severe and pervasive work environment required. In fact, most of Johnson's hostility was not race based. With respect to the coil incident itself, Yancick relied in large part on lay opinion testimony that Johnson was racist to support his assertion that the act was intentional. The Court concluded that the testimony was unsupported by facts and merely reflected the witnesses’ beliefs. In addition, the record supports the conclusion that the incident was an accident and not intentional. Finally, the Court noted that Yancick failed to establish employer liability. Hanna had a formal procedure in place. Yancick was aware of it. Yancick did not take advantage of the remedies provided.

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

BURNELL v. GATES RUBBER CO. (July 27, 2011)

Eddie Burnell, an African-American male, worked in Gates Rubber Co.'s tool room from 1993 to 1996. He claims that he was subjected to racial discrimination during this time. After several years elsewhere, he returned to the tool room in 2003. In December of 2006, his supervisor instructed him to perform a task. When he did not do so, the supervisor issued a written warning. Burnell refused to accept the warning, claiming that he did not have time to perform the task. Burnell complained to the plant manager that the warning was inappropriate. His principal excuse was that he did not have time to complete the task. He later added that he had safety concerns. At a later meeting, the plant manager accused Burnell of "playing the race card." The employee relations manager convinced the plant manager not to fire Burnell if he signed a commitment letter. They presented Burnell with a commitment letter that implied that he was guilty of insubordination and dishonesty. He refused to sign the letter. He was fired. Burnell brought suit, alleging Title VII discriminatory discharge and retaliatory discharge claims and a § 1981 discrimination claim. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Gates. Burnell appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Court first addressed his Title VII discriminatory discharge claim along with his § 1981 claim, which the Court noted are nearly identical. The Court rejected Burnell's claim under the direct method. Most of Burnell's circumstantial evidence related to the 1993-1996 period. The sum of his circumstantial evidence would not permit a rational jury to make a causal connection between Burnell’s termination and race discrimination. The Court also rejected the claim under the indirect method since he could satisfy neither the “met expectations” nor the "similarly situated" prongs of the test. The Court turned to his Title VII retaliatory discharge claim. Burnell clearly suffered a materially adverse employment action and engaged in statutorily protected activity. In fact, he complained quite regularly about what he felt were discriminatory practices in the workplace. To succeed on his retaliation claim, therefore, he needed only to connect his termination with his complaints. The Court relied almost exclusively on the plant manager's "playing the race card" comment, along with the history of discrimination complaints, to conclude that his claim should have survived summary judgment.

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

LOGAN v. WILKINS (July 8, 2011)

John Logan used to own a mobile home park in east-central Indiana. He claims that he no longer owns it as a result of the conduct of various local government officials and employees. Beginning in 2005, he says, these people started rumors that the health department was going to close the park, told the tenants to stop paying rent, obtained an order for the destruction of thirteen homes, hired an inept contractor who ended up destroying fourteen homes, and stole property. In September 2007, he lost the mobile home park to foreclosure. He also claims that the sheriff had someone order the tenants to vacate after the foreclosure. Logan brought suit in March of 2009 pursuant to §§ 1983 and 1981. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) dismissed the complaint. He found most of the allegations untimely under § 1983's two-year statute of limitations. The only claims within the two-year period related to the post-foreclosure conduct. Since Logan no longer own the property at that time, he had no claim. In an amended complaint, Logan alleged that the defendants concealed their conspiracy. The district court again dismissed. Logan appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Williams affirmed. In Indiana, the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is two years and it runs from the time a plaintiff knew or should have known of a constitutional violation. A defendant may be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense if the defendant has concealed material facts from the plaintiff. Logan has not alleged any such facts on the part of the defendants. He simply claims that his attorney was prompted to investigate upon receiving some information at some point after the conduct occurred. But Logan and his attorney knew of the facts as they occurred and they could have investigated earlier. With respect to the post-foreclosure claims, the Court stated that Logan waived any argument by not addressing the claims in his opening brief. The Court added that no facts were alleged to support Logan's conspiracy theory. Finally, the Court declined Logan's request to remand for an opportunity to amend his complaint once again.

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

MONTGOMERY v. AMERICAN AIRLINES (November 19, 2010)

Anthony Montgomery has been an American Airlines employee for over 20 years, all but five months of it as a Fleet Service Clerk. It is the events of those five months, however, that matter in this case. Late in 2006, Montgomery asked for and was granted a transfer to a mechanic's position. The collective bargaining agreement required and defined a six-month probationary period, toward the end of which Montgomery would have to pass a tool inspection and qualification test. Montgomery took his test in April of 2007. Two company supervisors and a union representative were present. Montgomery failed the test and was returned to his prior position. Nearly 3 months later, Montgomery complained to American that he was subjected to racial harassment and discrimination during his probationary period. In the initial meeting with a company representative, he never stated that he had complained to his supervisors at the time. The company conducted an investigation and concluded that it could not substantiate the allegations. The results of the investigation were that the test was administered fairly, that the few employees who became mechanics without passing the test fell into different categories, and that any tension in the workplace was not based on race. Montgomery filed suit. He alleged a hostile work environment in violation of § 1981 and Title VII and racial discrimination, also in violation of § 1981 and Title VII, for his return to the clerk position. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to American. Montgomery appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Kanne affirmed. The Court first addressed the hostile work environment claim, noting that the analysis under the two statutes is the same. The Court found triable issues of fact with respect to three of the four elements of the claim. In order to recover against an employer, however, Montgomery had to establish that American either participated in the harassment or was negligent in finding and correcting it. His only allegation of participation referred to a coworker and thus does not satisfy the participation prong. In order to satisfy the second prong, Montgomery had to establish either that he informed his supervisors of the harassment or that it was so obvious that it amounted to constructive notice. The record does not support either conclusion. The only person he reported his concerns to was his crew chief, a non-management coworker. America cannot be liable for the harassment without clear and direct reporting from the employee. Even if the harassment had been reported, the Court stated that American would have avoided liability because of its prompt and appropriate investigation. The Court turned to the discrimination claim, which Montgomery pursued under both the direct and indirect method of proof. Again, the analysis is the same under both statutes. Under the direct method, Montgomery asserted that non-African-Americans were not required to take the test. The Court rejected this as proof. Even if true, it did not allow the inference of discriminatory motive. Under the indirect method, Montgomery had to establish that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. He alleged that three individuals became mechanics without passing the test. But the Court concluded that none of the three was similarly situated to Montgomery -- one became a mechanic before the test rule was enforced, one became a mechanic when a recalculation of his probationary time put him past the time limit for taking the test, and Montgomery presented no admissible evidence with respect to the third individual. The Court concluded that Montgomery cannot prevail on his claim that the test requirement was discriminatory. Montgomery also claimed that the test itself was discriminatory. On that claim, the Court concluded that Montgomery simply presented no evidence. Finally, although Montgomery failed to make out a prima facie case, the Court also addressed pretext. It found that American had a legitimate reason for its actions and that Montgomery provided no evidence otherwise.

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

THOMPSON v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF CARBONDALE (November 3, 2010)

Archie Thompson was a paramedic with the Jackson County Ambulance Service (JCAS), which served the Southern Illinois Regional Emergency System. Memorial Hospital of Carbondale had medical control of the System. Thompson was the only African-American full-time paramedic in the entire System. In late 2003, Thompson handled a diabetic emergency call. He administered an intravenous solution and revived the patient. The patient declined further medical assistance and Thompson left. After he returned to his base, Tim Brumley (Thompson's supervisor) criticized him for not following the proper protocol of calling medical control before leaving the scene of a diabetic emergency. Thompson claimed not to know the protocol. It was not posted at the base or in his ambulance. Brumley also learned, on inquiry, that other paramedics were doing the same thing. Brumley reported his concerns to Paula Bierman, the System Coordinator. Bierman advised the Hospital's Medical Director that Thompson should be disciplined, citing both his “total disregard” for protocol and a then-recent failing test result. A few days later, Bierman prepared a disciplinary report removing Thompson from primary care medical duties and signed Doolittle's initials. Thompson was placed on paid probation for three months, during which time he was under constant supervision. While on probation, he began seeing a counselor. Shortly thereafter, he took a medical leave of absence and eventually decided not to return to work. Thompson filed suit against Memorial Hospital and the ambulance service, alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. Judge Murphy (S.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the ambulance service on all claims and to Memorial Hospital on the hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims. A jury heard the race discrimination claim against the Hospital, found in Thompson's favor, and awarded $500,000. The Hospital appeals from the jury verdict -- Thompson cross-appeals from the hostile work environment and constructive discharge summary judgment rulings.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Evans, and Williams affirmed in all respects except with respect to the amount of damages. The Court dispensed with the cross-appeal in relatively short order. To be successful, a hostile work environment claim must contain evidence of severe and pervasive harassment -- so much so that it changes the conditions of employment. The test is even higher for a constructive discharge claim. The Court concluded that the evidence here did not reach that level. With respect to the Hospital's appeal, the Court noted that it raised several arguments that were improperly preserved below. First, the Hospital argues that Thompson was not its employee. But it admitted below that this was a factual question and it never presented the issue to the jury. Second, the Hospital argues that the jury should not have heard testimony of the racial comments Bierman made because she was not the decision maker. But the evidence is relevant if she exerted significant influence over the decision maker. Here, the district court made a threshold determination that there was enough evidence on that issue to go to the jury and the Hospital did not seek an instruction on the point. Third, the Hospital argued that the probation was not an adverse employment action. But, although probation is not always an adverse employment action, the district court ruled that whether it was here was a factual question. The Hospital did not argue the point the jury or ask for an instruction. Having decided not to press these issues before the jury, the Hospital cannot rely on them now. Finally, the Court did believe that the $500,000 award was excessive. There was testimony of Thompson's depression and anxiety that his therapist characterized as "severe." But the adverse employment action was only placement on probationary status with no change in compensation. After reviewing awards in similar cases, the Court landed on a remittitur to $250,000.

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

FINCH v. PETERSON (September 10, 2010)

In 1978, the Indianapolis Police Department and the United States Department of Justice entered into a consent decree designed to correct racial discrimination in the Department. The long-range goal of the decree was to increase the number of African-Americans to the point where it reflected the racial composition of the workforce in the city. In part, it provided that assignments, transfers, and promotions were to be based on appropriate criteria without regard to race. Now fast forward almost 30 years to 2006. That year, the Department promoted 11 lieutenants to captain. To prepare for the promotions, the Department screened, tested, and ranked each applicant. Instead of promoting the highest-ranked applicants, however, the Department promoted three African-Americans who ranked as low as 26th. Three white applicants, all of whom ranked in the top 10, brought suit pursuant to Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. Magistrate Judge Lynch (S.D. Ind.) rejected the individual defendants' argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were required by the consent decree and denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first confirmed its jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine. Even in the absence of a final judgment, a decision denying qualified immunity on an issue of law is immediately appealable. On the merits, the Court recited the familiar two questions raised by a qualified immunity analysis -- was a constitutional right violated and was the right sufficiently well-established to put the defendants on notice. The Court rejected the defendants' only argument that their race-based promotion decisions did not violate the Constitution -- that is, that the consent decree required them. Although it conceded that the consent order had general goals of increasing the number of African-American captains, the Court pointed to the several, very specific provisions of the order requiring race-neutral decisions. Other provisions of the consent decree (e.g., requiring sufficient African-American representation in an applicant pool) were designed to allow the department to reach its general goal without engaging in race-based promotions. The Court also rejected the defendants' only argument with respect to the "sufficiently well-established" prong because it also relied on the premise that the consent order required them to promote the African-Americans.

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

EGONMWAN v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (April 22, 2010)

Iyare Egonmwan was a black male jail guard at the Cook County Jail. In 2001, he was transferred into the women's division. The following year, the female superintendent of the division disciplined him for conduct that had occurred prior to his transfer. Several days later, Egonmwan accused the superintendent of sexual harassment. The claim was investigated and determined to be unfounded. In 2003, during a general investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct between guards and prisoners, a female detainee informed the investigators that she and at least one other prisoner had had a sexual encounter with Egonmwan. Although Egonmwan was acquitted of criminal charges in 2004, an administrative hearing board terminated his employment in January of 2005 for violation of institutional rules. Egonmwan brought suit against, among others, Cook County and the Sheriff's Department. He alleged § 1981 race discrimination and § 1983 gender and race discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Egonmwan appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Evans, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first affirmed the summary judgment on the gender discrimination claim. Egonmwan proceeded under the direct method but presented only a few isolated remarks by the women's division superintendent. The Court noted that isolated remarks may be sufficient to establish a discriminatory motive, but they must be made by the decision-maker, at the time of the decision, and regarding the decision. Here, the Court doubted (but did not decide) that the superintendent could be considered the decision-maker. It upheld the summary judgment because of the seven to ten month lag between the remarks and the action and the fact that the remarks did not refer to Egonmwan's termination. With respect to the race discrimination claim, the Court concluded that Egonmwan was unable to show that similarly situated non-blacks were treated more favorably or that the defendants' reasons for his termination were not legitimate.

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

SWEARNIGEN-EL v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (April 22, 2010)

Swearnigen-El was a black male guard in the women's division at the Cook County Jail. He had a run-in with the head of the division, who wanted the correctional staff in the women's division to be comprised totally of women. Swearnigen-El thought that belief was discriminatory and he reported his concerns to other supervisors. Shortly thereafter, Swearnigen-El found himself in trouble when a female prisoner's allegations that male guards were engaged in sexual activity with female prisoners launched an investigation. The Sheriff's Police conducted the initial investigation, followed by an investigation by the State's Attorney’s office. Several prisoners reported that Swearnigen-El was having sex with a female prisoner. The prisoner herself admitted the activity. Swearnigen-El was de-deputized and transferred for violating a General Order that forbids "activities unbecoming" an employee. He was later charged with sexual misconduct and suspended with pay. Before he had a termination hearing with the merit board, Swearnigen-El resigned. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges, he filed a complaint alleging gender discrimination, race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the Title VII retaliation claim and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all other claims. Swearnigen-El appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first upheld summary judgment on all gender and race discrimination claims because there was no adverse employment action. Swearnigen-El was de-deputized and transferred after a internal investigation demonstrated evidence of misconduct. His pay was not affected and there was no evidence that the conditions were intolerable. The Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find a constructive discharge under those circumstances. Alternatively, the Court found that Swearnigen-El a) failed to establish sufficient evidence of race or gender discrimination to create a triable issue, and b) was not meeting his legitimate job expectations. Next, the Court considered the First Amendment retaliation claim. The principal speech at issue was Swearnigen-El's disagreement with his superior regarding the staffing of the women's division and his subsequent complaints to other officials that her actions constituted discrimination. The Court concluded that the speech was not protected -- Swearnigen-El was speaking not "as a citizen" but as a public employee under Garcetti. Again, the Court came to the alternative conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the defendants' actions pretextual. On the claim of malicious prosecution, the Court found sufficient evidence of misconduct after the investigation to establish probable cause. Since the absence of probable cause is an element of a malicious prosecution claim, Swearnigen-El's claim must fail. Finally, the Court agreed that there was no "outrageous" conduct that would amount to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and upheld the district court's dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim on the ground that Swearnigen-El failed to include it in his EEOC charge.

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

MCGOWAN v. DEERE & CO. (September 11, 2009)

William McGowan, an African-American male, had over 20 years of employment at Deere & Company when he injured his back. He eventually underwent surgery. He returned to work with a 25-pound weight restriction imposed by the company doctor. His surgeon and physical therapist both cleared him, on separate occasions, to return to work with less onerous restrictions. The weight restriction prevented him from returning to his prior job and also disqualified him from two other positions. McGowan brought an action under Title VII and § 1981, complaining of Deere's refusal to reinstate him and refusal to select him for the other positions. The district court granted summary judgment to Deere. McGowan appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Lawrence affirmed. The Court first noted that the elements and proof necessary for Title VII and § 1981 are essentially identical. McGowan proceeded under the indirect approach, in which he had to prove, among other things, that other persons similarly situated but not in his protected class were treated more favorably. The similarly situated test, said the Court, is a flexible test. The purpose is to identify a sufficient number of common factors between the claimant and others in order that a meaningful comparison can be made. The critical comparators here are job duties and weight restrictions. The court concluded that McGowan did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for either job duties or weight restrictions on the employees that the proffered as similarly situated. He therefore failed to make a prima facie case. Alternatively, the Court concluded that McGowan failed to produce any evidence that Deere's stated reasons for its decisions were discriminatory.

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

HOBBS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 21, 2009)

Kelly Hobbs was an African-American woman employed by the City of Chicago's Department of Transportation since 1989. She began her employment as a truck driver and was promoted to Lot Supervisor in 2000. She applied for a Foreman position in both 1997 and 2000and was rejected both times in favor of white males. She filed a charge of gender and race discrimination in January of 2005, shortly after she found out that another white male had been promoted to Acting Foreman. She complains that, after her discrimination charges were filed, she was disciplined on several occasions, her car was vandalized and her job duties were changed. In 2006, she brought suit against the City, alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation claims against the City under Title VII, race discrimination and retaliation claims against the individual defendants under § 1981, and a hostile work environment claim against the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. Hobbs appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne and Williams affirmed. The Court considered the Title VII and § 1981 race and gender discrimination claims together. Under the indirect method of proof, the Court concluded that Hobbs failed to establish she was passed over in favor of a person similarly or less qualified than she. The record showed that the male was more qualified, at least with respect to those skills that were part of the job qualifications. Hobbs also failed to show that the City's reasons for promoting him were pretextual. The Court admitted that the process by which he was promoted was somewhat questionable and may suggest favoritism, but did not prove discrimination. Her retaliation claims failed as well. She failed to show a materially adverse job action and she failed to establish a causal connection between her charges and the discipline imposed on her. The Court was troubled by her charge of automobile vandalism and the City's failure to investigate it, but concluded that the mere fact that it occurred after she filed charges was not enough to survive summary judgment. Finally, the Court concluded that the same facts upon which she based her retaliation claim were similarly insufficient to rise to the "severe or pervasive" threshold of hostile work environment.

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

STEPHENS v. ERICKSON (June 30, 2009)

Lesley Stephens, an African American, has worked for the City of Chicago since 1979, except for a disability leave from 1988-1993. He has been a truck driver, an acting foreman, and an accident adjuster, all within the Department of Fleet Management. He filed a lawsuit against the City in 1997, alleging that it engaged in racially discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. Shortly after he settled the lawsuit in 2004, Stephens applied for four promotions. He was passed over each time. He again brought suit, alleging violations of § 1981 and Title VII. He claims that the City retaliated against him for his earlier lawsuit and his complaints of discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. Stephens appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Wood and Sykes affirmed. The Court stated that it would apply the same elements to the claims under § 1981 and Title VII. Stephens chose to establish his retaliation claim under the direct method of proof. The principal issue on appeal was the causal connection between Stephens' protected activity and the City's failure to promote him. The Court set out the promotion procedure in detail – and stated that Stephens produced no evidence that any of the several employees who interviewed him for the promotions even knew of the earlier lawsuit or his prior complaints of discrimination. The Court noted that in each case, the City interviewed several applicants, rated the applicants on the same criteria, and recommended the applicant with the highest score. The Court also rejected Stephens' argument that the head of the department retaliated against him by pre-selecting his preferred candidate by choosing him for an "acting" position, leading the interviewers to a predetermined selection. Nothing in the record linked the department head to any of the interviews or any of the interviewers. The Court concluded that Stephens simply had not produced evidence sufficient to create an inference of retaliation. The Court also concluded that the retaliation allegations other than failure to promote (menial job assignments, intimidation, segregation, etc.) would not dissuade a reasonable employee from making a charge of discrimination and were therefore not "materially adverse" and actionable.

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