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

Woods told a coworker at the Berwyn Fire Department that “he wanted to kill somebody, all of them” and that his children were going to “go over there” and “tune them up,” referring to his coworkers and superiors. Chief O’Halloran looked into the statements and eventually recommended termination. A three-member panel for the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners conducted a hearing. Woods was represented by counsel, who gave opening and closing statements, put on witnesses, cross-examined others, made and won objections, and presented exhibits. After the hearing, the Board voted to terminate Woods based largely on the testimony of the co-worker to whom Woods made the statement. Woods filed suit asserting discrimination and unlawful retaliation and attempted to proceed under a “cat’s paw” theory of liability, which applies in employment discrimination cases when a biased subordinate (O’Halloran) who lacks decision-making power uses the formal decision-maker (the Board) as a dupe in a deliberate scheme to trigger a discriminatory employment action. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment, rejecting Woods’s claims, noting the full and independent evidentiary hearing and the Board’s almost complete reliance on the co-worker’s testimony. View "Woods v. City of Berwyn" on Justia Law

Arroyo worked as a Volvo material handler, 2005-2011. Arroyo was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve. She deployed twice to Iraq and Kuwait: 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 and took leave for training and other military activities. She received more than 900 days of military leave from Volvo. There is evidence, including internal emails, suggesting that her supervisors were frustrated from the beginning about her absences. After her 2009-2010 deployment Arroyo declined a voluntary severance package and returned to work. Arroyo was diagnosed with PTSD. Arroyo took three months FMLA and disability leave. Volvo granted accommodations, including: a quiet place to meditate; a mentor; time off for counseling; and breaks and support during anxiety attacks. Other requested accommodations—a more flexible schedule, use of earplugs or headphones in both ears, day-to-day guidance, putting all communications in writing, and disability awareness training—were under review when she was terminated for violation of Volvo’s attendance policy. The district court rejected her claims for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791 , and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to discrimination claims under USERRA and the ADA, stating that Arroyo raised genuine, material factual issues. View "Arroyo v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., LLC" on Justia Law

Caterpillar bought a South Milwaukee factory that manufactures strip-mining equipment and became the employer party to a collective-bargaining agreement with a United Steelworkers local union. Two months later, a crane operator (a member of the bargaining unit) was killed when a 36-ton crawler crushed him after shifting while being rotated by the crane. He had been lying underneath the crawler to unhook chains attaching it to the crane. Police officers, OSHA agents, company executives, and local union officials, converged within hours on the accident scene. The local union’s officials were not safety specialists. The president of the local union informed Caterpillar’s regional manager that a member of the national union’s emergency response team would come to inspect the accident site. The manager promised to cooperate but changed his mind and, the next day, refused to allow the union investigator to enter the factory. The company stated that because it was cooperating with the police and with OSHA, no further investigation was warranted. The Seventh Circuit enforced the National Labor Relations Board’s order requiring Caterpillar to allow the union’s investigator access to the site. The materials shown the investigator were not an adequate substitute for on-site investigation, and the investigation itself would impose trivial costs on the company. View "Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Caterpillar Inc." on Justia Law

Boutros worked for Avis Rent A Car as a courtesy bus driver at O’Hare Airport. He had worked for Avis before a short stint in the military. After he was honorably discharged for unsatisfactory performance, Avis did not want to rehire him, but did so. One night in May 2008, Boutros informed his supervisor that the fire extinguisher on his bus inexplicably discharged, spraying fire retardant near the driver’s seat. He reported no injury at the time, but the next morning he claimed that chemicals from the discharge had harmed him. Avis launched an investigation and eventually fired Boutros for dishonesty and insubordination in connection with his shifting accounts of the fire-extinguisher accident. Boutros sued, claiming that Avis fired him because of his race and subjected him to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301. A jury rejected his claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the appeal was frivolous and issuing an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules. View "Boutros v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC" on Justia Law

Rahn, a white male who earned a PhD in Industrial Engineering from the University of Illinois, was hired as a visiting professor at NIU. His wife, Regina, was hired as a tenure-track assistant professor in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering for that same school year. During that year, a tenure-track assistant professor position opened up in the Department. Rahn applied. Despite her husband’s status as an applicant, Regina was a voting member of the search committee. She claims that one committee member stated that he would not hire a white man into the department if qualified minority candidates were available. After another applicant was hired, the Rahns alleged reverse discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 701 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and copyright infringement, based on use of teaching notes and slides. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on all claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. That testimony did not support indicate that an evaluation metric was a subterfuge for eliminating Rahn on racial grounds. A university employer may properly preference academic experience; Rahn did not present evidence that such a preference was inconsistent with the initial description of the position and the preferred qualifications. View "Rahn v. Bd. of Trs. of N. Ill. Univ." on Justia Law

Bisluk, a conservative who votes Republican, was a special agent working in Chicago for the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Liquor Control Commission under former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Democratic administration. She purchased a home in southern Illinois and asked her employer about transferring duty assignments from Chicago to southern Illinois, but failed to submit a transfer request or apply for the job. She did not get a position. She sued several state officials alleging that she was denied a transfer to southern Illinois because of her political association, in violation of the First Amendment and because of her gender in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The undisputed evidence showed that Bisluk did not receive the transfer because she did not submit the proper transfer paperwork or apply for the job. View "Bisluk v. Hamer" on Justia Law

Libertyville Toyota is a 140-employee car dealership with an 80-person service department. In 2011 Libertyville’s owner, AutoNation, became aware of interest in unionization and held meetings with the affected staff, the last of which was surreptitiously recorded. Around the same time, Libertyville suspended an automotive painter, Huerta, after receiving an anonymous voicemail accusing Huerta of promoting the union cause and of receiving a charge of driving under the influence. Huerta was ultimately fired. The Union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board. An administrative law judge concluded that certain comments by the AutoNation executives at the recorded meeting violated the National Labor Relations Act, but did not uphold the accusation that AutoNation had unlawfully suspended and discharged Huerta because of his union activity. The Board affirmed as to the meeting but reversed as to Huerta’s discharge. The Seventh Circuit determined that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and entitled to enforcement. View "AutoNation, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Michels is a member of the Pipe Line Contractors Association (PLCA), a trade association that negotiates collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) on behalf of its employer members with unions. In 2006, the PLCA and the Union entered into a CBA in “effect until January 31, 2011, and thereafter from year to year unless terminated at the option of either party after sixty (60) days’ notice.” The CBA required contributions to the Central States multiemployer pension plan, 29 U.S.C. 1000(2), (3), (37). In August 2010, the PLCA informed the Union that it intended to terminate the 2006 CBA on January 31, 2011, and begin negotiations for a new agreement; the parties signed eight extensions, the last ending November 15, 2011. Michels contributed to the pension plan throughout those extensions. The parties agreed that the employers would cease making contributions to the plan as of November 15, 2011; that they would make comparable payments to an escrow fund until a “mutually acceptable” fund was designated; and that they would otherwise extend the terms of the 2006 CBA until December 31, 2011. The fund claimed that the obligation to make contributions had not ended. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court holding that this was not sufficient to end the duty to contribute. View "Michels Corp. v. Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Secrease sued his former employer and some of its supervisors, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2 and 2000e–3(a). The employer moved to dismiss the suit as untimely, arguing that Secrease had tried to make his Title VII claims look timely by attaching to his complaint a charge of discrimination, filed with the EEOC in April 2013, but mismatched to a right-to-sue letter dated March 2014 that addressed a different EEOC charge. Secrease had filed three charges of discrimination with the EEOC. In response, Secrease submitted a document that he claimed was his employment contract and that contained an arbitration clause. After examining the employer’s evidence that the document had been falsified, the district court dismissed his suit with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the fraud finding was not clearly erroneous and the sanction of dismissal was appropriate. View "Secrease, v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Bell alleged that her former employer, PNC Bank, failed to pay her overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Illinois Minimum Wage and Wage Payment and Collection Acts, and that the failure was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a PNC policy or practice that affected other employees. Bell claimed that she was evaluated, in part, based on how many new accounts she brought into the bank, and in order to generate new accounts she needed to spend “significant” time outside of her regular work hours visiting prospective clients. Some of the assignments to visit prospective clients came from a PNC vice president who did not work at the Bell’ branch. According to Bell, when she submitted time cards reflecting overtime work, her branch manager and a PNC regional manager told her that “PNC would not permit... overtime for the branch,” and “PNC expected its employees to handle their outside-the-branch work on their own time, without reporting any extra hours that they worked.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed certification of a class of plaintiffs. Many issues remain unanswered and the district court was correct to conclude that a class action would be an appropriate and efficient pathway to resolution. View "Bell v. PNC Bank" on Justia Law