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

Greengrass sued her former employer, IMS, alleging that IMS retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the U.S. EEOC against the company by naming her in its annual SEC filings and casting her complaint as “meritless.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of IMS on the ground that Greengrass lacked evidence showing a causal link between her EEOC filing and the alleged retaliatory act. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Greengrass made out a prima facie case of retaliation by demonstrating that she engaged in a statutorily protected activity when she filed her EEOC charge, that IMS engaged in an adverse employment action when it listed her name in its SEC filings, and that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that IMS listed her name because Greengrass filed the EEOC charge. View "Greengrass v. Int'l Monetary Sys., Ltd." on Justia Law

Ripberger, born in 1951, began working for IDOC as a substance abuse counselor in 1991. She lost her job in 2010, when IDOC contracted out its counseling program to Corizon. Ripberger alleges that Corizon’s decision not to hire her stemmed from previous events in 2009, when Orton-Bell and Ripberger complained that their desks were being used after hours. According to Ripberger, they were told it was “just” staff members, not inmates, using their desks for sex, and that they could simply wash down their desks. It came to light that Orton-Bell was having an affair with the Major in charge of custody. Orton-Bell and the Major were terminated, but the Major quickly received unemployment benefits, kept his benefits, and began working again at the prison on a contract basis. Orton-Bell filed suit. Ripberger supported Orton-Bell’s sex discrimination complaint. Ripberger sued Corizon, claiming sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621. The district court granted Corizon summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Ripberger was the unfortunate victim of a reduced workforce. View "Ripberger v. Corizon, Inc." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a long-standing local ordinance, the City of Plymouth, Indiana pays its police officers “longevity pay” after each work anniversary, calculated by multiplying $225 by the number of years that the officer has been on the force. Faced with financial difficulties in 1989, Plymouth enacted a second longevity pay ordinance, which prorates longevity pay for officers who take a leave of absence during any given year, including for military service. During officer DeLee’s twelfth year on the job, he missed nearly eight months of work while serving in the Air Force Reserves. When he returned, Plymouth paid him one-third of his full longevity payment for that year. DeLee sued, arguing that longevity pay is a seniority-based benefit to which the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301–4335, entitles him in full. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plymouth. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that Plymouth’s longevity benefit is more appropriately characterized as a reward for lengthy service, rather than as compensation for work performed the preceding year, USERRA guarantees DeLee a full longevity payment for his twelfth year of employment. View "DeLee v. City of Plymouth" on Justia Law

Parker asserted that “Scheck Industries” had fired him after just a few months on the job because of his race and several complaints he made to management about workplace discrimination. The EEOC issued Parker a right-to-sue letter, explaining that the agency had investigated but was unable to confirm his allegations. The agency’s letter did not suggest that “Scheck Industries” never employed Parker or that an entity with that name did not exist. In fact, Parker’s employer apparently used that name in dealing with the EEOC, since the agency’s letter to Parker was copied to “Scheck Industries.” Parker drafted a pro se complaint. Defense counsel acknowledged receipt of service but explained that the company’s liability insurer failed to file an answer after misidentifying the complaint; that Scheck Mechanical never employed Parker; and that Parker’s claims under Title VII were untimely. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, rejecting Scheck Mechanical’s position, that Parker sued only Scheck Mechanical; the complaint included multiple references to Scheck Industrial. It may not matter which company employed Parker if, as Parker asserts, the line between the companies is blurred. View "Parker v. Scheck Mech. Corp." on Justia Law

A Catholic school in Fort Wayne, Indiana, discharged a language-arts teacher because she underwent in vitro fertilization in violation of the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. She sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2; 2000e(k), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the order was not final and that the case did not qualify for collateral order review. View "Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend" on Justia Law

Taylor-Novotny sued her former employer, Health Alliance Medical Plans under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. 2601-2654, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000. She contended that Health Alliance failed to accommodate her multiple sclerosis as the ADA required, discriminated and retaliated against her based on her disability, interfered with her FMLA rights, and discriminated against her based on her race. She also asserted a state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment for Health Alliance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Taylor-Novotny did not establish that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA and did not meeting Health Alliance’s legitimate expectations for punctuality and accountability. Her failure to meet Health Alliance’s legitimate expectations also foreclosed her race discrimination claim. With respect to her ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, she did not establish that the additional accommodation that she sought was reasonable. The evidence was insufficient to form a convincing mosaic suggesting that Health Alliance retaliated against her because she sought accommodations for her multiple sclerosis. Health Alliance never denied Taylor-Novotny FMLA leave. View "Taylor-Novotny v. Health Alliance Med. Plans, Inc." on Justia Law

Widmar worked as a plant manager for 16 years. The company’s National Manufacturing Manager, Roberts, terminated Widmar’s employment in November 2009, claiming that the company was unsatisfied with Widmar’s performance. Widmar alleges that the company unlawfully terminated him because of his age, and then defamed him by speaking ill of his work performance to others. The district court granted the company summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Widmar’s factual assertions suffered from several deficiencies, including failure to assert his ability to perform is position in general View "Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff has a commercial driver’s license and drives school buses, but wanted to drive vehicles that ferry equipment and people involved in movie and television productions. In Chicago such drivers belong to the Movie/Trade Show Division of Teamsters Local 727 and are paid twice what plaintiff earns as a bus driver. The Division has about 300 members, but in 70 years, has never referred a female driver to any production company. Because of agreements with those companies, the union effectively determines who is hired. In 2010 plaintiff applied, paid the union’s initiation fee, and began making dues payments. Months later, having received no referrals, she called the business agent, who told her to stop calling him. She received a similar response from a Transportation Coordinator. She claims that her résumé was never included with those of other applicants for referral. Referrals are not based on seniority and there is no shortage of work. She obtained an EEOC right to sue letter. The district court dismissed on the pleadings. The Seventh Circuit reversed and directed assignment to a different judge, noting “the abruptness and irregularity” of the handling of the case and “tone of derision that pervades his opinion.” View "Stuart v. Local 727, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters" on Justia Law

Winston sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Officer O’Brien used excessive force while detaining Winston at a Chicago police station, tasering him repeatedly and punching him while he was in handcuffs. Winston’s attorneys sought $ 20,000 in compensatory damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. The jury found that O’Brien was liable for $1 in compensatory damages and $7,500 in punitive damages. Winston then sought $336,918 in attorney’s fees under section 1988. The district court found that Winston’s “victory was real, not Pyrrhic,” that Winston’s attorneys could recover fees for all their requested hours but sought too high of an hourly rate, and granted a reduced fee award of $187,467. Winston filed a petition for indemnification and motion for writ of execution against the city. The district court concluded that the city was liable for the fees under the Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9-102. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The language of the statute gives the city discretion in deciding to indemnify attorney’s fees associated with an award of compensatory damages, and the collective bargaining agreement with the police union did not convert it into a mandate to pay fees. View "City of Chicago v. Winston" on Justia Law

Meade wrote a letter to the League for Innovation in the Community College about her employer, Moraine Valley Community College. Meade, an adjunct faculty member, alleged that poor treatment of adjuncts harmed students. She signed the letter as president of the adjunct faculty union. Two days later, Moraine Valley fired Meade, sending her written notice explicitly citing Meade’s letter. A few weeks later, the college warned Meade that it would regard her further presence on campus as criminal trespass. Believing that Moraine Valley retaliated against her for exercising her right to freedom of speech and violated her due process rights, Meade sued the college under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed, reasoning that Meade’s letter did not address matters of public interest and could not serve as the basis of a First Amendment retaliation claim. It rejected Meade’s due process claim for lack of a cognizable property interest in her employment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Meade may not pursue a due process claim based on the deprivation of a liberty interest, but pleaded enough to go forward on the theory that the college deprived her of a protected property interest. She also stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation.View "Meade v. Moraine Valley Cmty. Coll." on Justia Law