Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Based on a series of incidents, during which managers showed hostility to the efforts of truck drivers to unionize and toward drivers who supported the union, an ALJ found that the company engaged in several unfair labor practices and imposed remedial sanctions. The NLRB affirmed. The Seventh Circuit ordered the company to reinstate an individual, to make its pro-union employees whole for losses attributable to its unlawful conduct, to post a remedial notice and to cease and desist from the conduct found to have been unlawful. The company violated the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 158(a), by deviation from its seniority system and manipulations to discriminate against pro-union drivers, by creating and filling new positions based on a new evaluation test without bargaining, by excluding pro-union drivers from those positions, and by contracting work outside the bargaining unit. The company violated the rights of an employee who was interrogated without union representation.

Employees filed a proposed class action in state court, alleging violations of the minimum wage law. The employer removed to federal court. The district court found that the employer failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, as required for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1). The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. After the employer explained its calculations showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, in order to hold that there was no jurisdiction, the district court had to find that it was legally impossible for plaintiffs to recover that much. The employer's calculations regarding the accrual of the statutory penalty are a reasonable interpretation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law statutory language.

Plaintiff, employed by the department of public works since 1972, publicly criticized the city's decision to purchase a certain brand of tractor and indicated that board members were influenced to purchase the more-expensive tractors by having been taken on an expenses-paid visit to the company's plant. A letter was published in the local paper and the board ultimately changed its decision. After the debate, the plaintiff's subordinates were promoted over him and his applications for promotion were denied. The district court rejected First Amendment retaliation claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the plaintiff made his public comments in the context of performing his job. When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Nurses sued their former employer, a privately-operated jail, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging racial discrimination and hostile work environment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The record concerning plaintiffs' allegations about references to monkeys and skin color, clothing marked by the confederate flag, and disparate treatment, was insufficient to establish a triable issue of hostile environment. With respect to other claims of discrimination, the plaintiffs did not establish a materially adverse employment action. State law whistleblower claims failed because the plaintiffs failed to allege violation of federal, state, or local law or misuse of public resources.

The employee developed bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome while working at a supermarket, then worked as a greeter until she was laid off in 2003 because she was unable to perform the job. She subsequently started and left a dental hygiene, radiology technology, and electroencephalography training programs because of problems related to her hands and vision. At age 45 she had an extensive medical history, including fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, bilateral mild ulnar neuropathy, and multiple eye surgeries with dry eye syndrome. In 2008 an ALJ rejected her claim for social security disability benefits. The appeals council denied review and the district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the ALJ failed to acknowledge a physician report contrary to her conclusion and to explain the weight she gave that opinion, but stating that remand would serve no purpose in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the denial.

The employee began work at the university in 1989 and was the only African-American working in her department when racially charged discord erupted. In 2005, she began filing complaints about her coworkersâ offensive conduct, which included the use of racial epithets, references to the Ku Klux Klan, veiled threats of physical harm, and other unpleasant conduct. In 2006 she filed two complaints with the EEOC for race discrimination and, later, retaliation. After getting her right-to-sue letter, she filed in a range of federal and state discrimination claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that she did not establish employer liability on the hostile work environment claim or put forth sufficient facts to support her retaliation claim under Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e). The university promptly investigated each complaint and the employee, who was promoted and got a raise, did not suffer a materially adverse employment action.

When the plaintiff left the company, the parties entered an agreement about how the company would handle requests for references. In a suit alleging breach, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the company and awarded $173,232 in attorney fees. On remand a jury returned a general verdict that the company did not breach the agreement and the court awarded $522,527 attorney fees and costs and expenses in the amount of $40,493.64. On a second appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The trial court properly allowed the company to argue waiver. Jury instructions concerning waiver, agency, breach, and damages were within the court's discretion. The award of fees was commercially reasonable and not inequitable.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, establishes minimum wage and requires employers to pay 150 percent of hourly wage for hours worked above 40 a week except to "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity." Plaintiff, an account manager, acted as a bridge between software developers and her employer's customers; she did not negotiate contracts. The district court rejected her overtime claim on summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffâs primary duties were directly related to the complex and varied general business operations of her employer and of customers; her hours varied each week. There are some "administrative" functions she did not perform, but she was one of many specialists below the highest executive level, as is typical of modern business.

Plaintiff, previously employed by defendant as a driver-technician, claims racial and sexual discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation, all in violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000(e)), and retaliatory discharge in violation of the Illinois Workersâ Compensation Act. He had been suspended for poor performance, then injured his back, and has not been present for work since 2005. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the company, but denied the company's request for sanctions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, but reversed on the retaliation claim. The Title VII claims of discrimination were time-barred and the plaintiff did not claim discriminatory discharge before the EEOC; he filed with the EEOC after being fired, so the termination was not retaliation for that filing. There was evidence that could support a claim of retaliation of the Workers' Compensation filing.

The plaintiff claimed gender discrimination and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, retaliation in violation of Title VII, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliatory discharge in violation of Illinois law, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Acts, 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1. A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages, overtime damages, and lost wages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time of filing. In addition to claims based on sexual harassment, the complaint alleged that plaintiff was fired for filing a police report concerning the assault. Discharge for filing a police report is an Illinois common law tort without reference to the duties created by the state Human Rights Act, and therefore not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state Human Rights Commission.