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

Aurora hired Gosey as a chef’s assistant in 2008. In September 2009 she applied for an open position as food-services manager at the hospital. The job posting stated a preference for someone with “five to seven years of progressively responsible experience in managing a food service operation,” including experience in managing “staff, budgets and multiple human resources functions.” There were more than 150 applicants. Aurora interviewed Gosey, but ultimately hired a white woman. Gosey filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, alleging that she had been denied the promotion, was assigned extra duties, and disciplined for sham infractions because of her race. She accused Aurora’s managers of trying to manufacture an excuse to fire her by altering her attendance records. Two months later, Aurora fired her. Gosey sued, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e-3(a). The district court granted Aurora summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to claims of harassment and failure to promote, but concluded that further proceedings are necessary on claims that Aurora fired Gosey because of race and in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination.View "Gosey v. Aurora Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Since 1994, Harper has served as Fulton County Treasurer, an elected position with a four-year term. The 21-member County Board sets salaries for elected officials. From 1983–2002, the County Treasurer and County Clerk were paid the same salary. When Rumler, the County Clerk, announced his retirement, the board increased his salary in order to allow him to receive greater retirement benefits. From 2003–2006, the County Clerk’s salary exceeded the County Treasurer’s salary. After Rumler’s retirement, the new County Clerk, James Nelson, and the County Treasurer were paid the same salary from 2007–2010. In the meantime, disputes between Harper and the Board apparently prompted the Finance Committee to recommend against increasing the County Treasurer’s salary in 2010. The Board adopted the recommendation, 10–8, but voted (16–2) to give the County Clerk annual pay raises. Harper filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging sex discrimination in compensation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the county. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Harper failed to show that the Board’s concerns about the content and timeliness of her reports were merely excuses covering sex discrimination. View "Harper v. Fulton Cnty." on Justia Law

Reid and Sears were at-will employees at NACA, a national not-for-profit corporation that helps potential homeowners facing discriminatory or predatory lending. As mortgage consultants, they were licensed under 12 U.S.C. 5103. NACA had a Document Security Policy that required employees to scan documents into a secure digital system and shred the paper originals to protect the client’s information. Paper client files were not to be kept. The policy had been emailed to managers, but it was not enforced in the Chicago office. While working for NACA, Reid and Sears made complaints about NACA’s business practices relating to minimum wage and overtime, as well as violations of state and federal law in handling mortgage applications. At least four other individuals complained about minimum wage and overtime pay, and at least five others complained about splitting commissions between licensed and unlicensed mortgage consultants. None of the others were fired. After a regional manager discovered violations of the file policy during a visit, Reid and Sears were fired. The district court granted NACA summary judgment, finding that they had not offered sufficient evidence that they were discharged in retaliation for their complaints. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Reid v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of Am." on Justia Law

Bass worked as a custodian. In 2002, she was assigned to work at a single-story elementary school. In 2003 a second story was added. A male was responsible for cleaning the second floor. In 2008–09, the District commissioned a study of custodial duties at 11 schools, which revealed that second floor took tasks more time than one shift permitted, while the first floor could be finished in less than one shift. While Bass was on leave, the District had the substitute custodian try a new arrangement. She was able to finish during her shift. The District reassigned second‐floor restrooms to Bass. The study also resulted in seven male custodians being assigned additional duties. Bass then had two suspensions without pay. She did not contest the suspensions; she had failed to complete her duties. Her work improved significantly. Before 2010, Bass had taken two leaves that exceeded the leave to which she was entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. Bass injured her back in August 2010 and again took leave. The District told Bass that she would have no more available leave as of November 3, and would be fired if she failed to return to work. Bass returned to work on November 4. She injured her back again 12 days later and was out for 2.5 days. The District issued a reprimand. On January 3, Bass again did not report to work. She provided a doctor’s note, but exceeded available leave time. When asked when she would be able to return without restrictions, Bass did not reply. She was fired on February 2, for job abandonment. Three male custodians lost their jobs between 2008 and 2011 on the same ground. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on her sex discrimination claims. The district court dismissed her sit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Bass v. Joliet Pub. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In 2006 Finkl, a Chicago steel producer, initiated termination of its defined benefit pension plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, apparently anticipating merger with another company. The Plan was amended in 2008, to include Section 11.6, a special provision for distributions in connection with the contemplated termination, to apply if a participant “ha[d] not begun to receive a benefit under the Plan at the time benefits are to be distributed on account of termination of the Plan.” In May 2008, Finkl decided not to terminate the Plan. Section 11.6 was deleted. Finkl notified the IRS that the Plan was not going to terminate. Seven Finkl employees sued, alleging that they were entitled to an immediate distribution of benefits while they were still working for Finkl and that repeal of Section 11.6 violated the anti-cutback terms of the Plan, I.R.C. 411(d)(6), and ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g). The IRS sent Finkl a favorable determination letter that the Plan had retained its tax qualified status. In 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of summary judgment to Finkl. The employees then pursued a claim in the Tax Court, which ruled that they were collaterally estopped by the Seventh Circuit decision from challenging the 2009, determination letter, which concluded that the Plan had not been terminated and continued to qualify for favorable tax treatment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

In 2003, a joint venture formed between llcs, TABFG and NT Prop, to trade securities. TABFG was responsible for trading and was comprised of three individual traders. NT Prop was to fund the venture, and included two limited liability corporations: NT Financial and Pfeil Commodities. The sole member of Pfeil Commodities was Richard Pfeil, the “money man.” NT Prop was managed by Pfeil’s attorney, and another. NT Prop provided $2 million start-up money and the traders earned profits of $3.4 million. Before forming TABFG, the traders were employees of SIG and were subject to restrictive covenants. The Agreement provided for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs necessary to escape the restriction. The traders sought a declaratory judgment. SIG responded by adding TABFG and NT Prop to the lawsuit, seeking disgorgement of profits. SIG obtained an injunction covering nine months after their departure from SIG, ending the joint venture. The parties failed to agree to a final accounting, but TABFG needed funds for a defense in the SIG lawsuit. Pfeil caused NT Prop to distribute $360,000 to TABFG, $533,023.69 to NT Financial, and $2,742,182.02 to Pfeil Commodities. TABFG sued, alleging that Pfeil, who was not an officer, director or manager of NT Prop, engineered a distribution of the bulk of the joint venture funds to himself and tortiously caused NT Prop to breach its obligations to TABFG under the Agreement. The district court judge agreed and awarded $957,659.68. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "TABFG, LLC v. Pfeil" on Justia Law

The employees of the Chicago poultry processing plant are represented by a union. Before beginning work, they are required to put on a sterilized jacket, plastic apron, cut‐resistant gloves, plastic sleeves, earplugs, and a hairnet. They must remove this sanitary gear at the start of their half‐hour lunch break and put it back on before returning to work. They are not compensated for the time spent changing. They alleged that the employer violated overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 and of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The district judge granted the employer summary judgment and denied class certification with respect to the state‐law claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Act excludes from time for which an employee must be compensated for “any time spent in changing clothes at the beginning or end of each workday which was excluded from measured working time … by the express terms of or by custom or practice under a bona fide collective‐ bargaining agreement applicable to the particular employee.” The cause of amicable labor relations would be impaired by reading broadly laws that remove wage and hour issues from the scope of collective bargaining. Employer and union in this case agreed not to count the tiny changing times as compensated work. The plaintiffs were trying to upend the deal struck by their own union. View "Mitchell v. JCG Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Days after the collective bargaining agreement expired, a bargaining-unit employee asked the Labor Board to conduct a decertification election. Neither the company nor the union opposed the request. In the election 19 votes were cast for the union and 18 against, with the remaining ballot not opened. The union claimed that the employee who had cast it was not a bargaining unit member. The Board rejected that challenge, the ballot was opened, and the vote was against the union. The union also claimed that the company used objectionable conduct to turn employees against the union, including sending a letter of unknown origin to a member, threatening jail if she voted for the union. The Board agreed with three of the charges and ordered a new election. Before then, however, the company announced that it would no longer cooperate with the union. The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), which was upheld. The Board ordered the company to recognize the union and bargain on request and sought enforcement of its order. The Seventh Circuit enforced the order. The order refusing to decertify the union and ordering a new election is outside of the court’s jurisdiction: the result of the old election has not been vindicated and a new election has not been held. The union remains certified and the employer must continue to recognize it. View "Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Heartland Human Servs." on Justia Law

The general contractor of a Wisconsin construction project, hired Harsco to supply scaffolding. Krien, injured in a fall when a plank on a scaffold on which he was standing, broke, sued Harsco. The parties settled his claim for $900,000. Harsco filed a third‐party complaint against the contractor, seeking indemnification plus interest and attorneys’ fees. The district judge granted the contractor summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded after examining the complex provisions of the contract between the two. The plank may or may have been supplied by Harsco and may or may not have been defective, as claimed by Krien, who could not sue Riley in tort, because against his employer his only remedy for a work‐related accident was a claim for workers’ compensation, but there has never been judicial resolution of these questions, because Krien’s suit was settled before there was any judgment. Indemnification, however, is a form of insurance, and could apply even if the party seeking indemnification was negligent. Riley’s duty to indemnify Harsco extends to legal expenses incurred by Harsco in defending against Krien’s suit and in litigating this suit. View "Krien v. Harsco Corp." on Justia Law

The Brotherhood represents Norfolk employees who work to ensure that railways remain clear, safe, and navigable. The collective bargaining agreements entitle Brotherhood members to an investigation before Norfolk takes disciplinary action. Norfolk fired four Brotherhood members for making false statements about injuries they suffered while on duty. The investigation followed the procedures typical of a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151. As part of the investigation before the firing, Norfolk submitted reports from a consulting engineer, but the engineer did not testify. The Brotherhood sought an injunction to ban the use of accident reconstruction reports in employee disciplinary investigations unless Norfolk adheres to additional pre-hearing procedures. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The dispute arose from application of the collective bargaining agreement in employee disciplinary actions. Norfolk met its burden of proving that its use of the disputed reports at investigations was justified by a contractual right, albeit an implied one. The suit is a “quintessential” minor dispute under the Act and there is “no basis for asserting jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute.” View "Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co." on Justia Law