Alfredo Abrego v. Robert Wilkie
907 F.3d 1004
7th Cir.2018Background
- Abrego, a male Hispanic dental assistant at a VA clinic, worked there June 2011–Dec 2014 and had recurring interpersonal conflicts with supervisors (notably Dr. Strampe) and coworkers.
- Documented incidents include yelling at coworkers, arguing with a patient, refusing to work with a patient, leaving early during a blizzard, and illegally recording a supervisor (leading to a 14‑day suspension).
- Abrego filed three EEO complaints (Aug 2012, Feb 2014, Oct 2014) alleging race/sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment; the VA issued final agency decisions rejecting those claims.
- In Nov 2014 the VA issued a proposed removal based on misconduct; removal became effective Dec 19, 2014. Abrego sued under Title VII for race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendant (Secretary of Veterans Affairs); Seventh Circuit affirmed. Key factual findings: only the Jan 2014 suspension and Dec 2014 removal were actionable adverse actions; other criticisms and monitoring were not materially adverse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion / waiver | Abrego argued claims based on Oct 2014 EEO complaint should proceed. | Secretary argued Counts 4–5 (based on Oct 2014 EEO) were unexhausted and Abrego failed to respond at summary judgment. | Court: Counts 4–5 waived for failure to oppose exhaustion argument; exhaustion limits court scope. |
| Race & sex discrimination | Abrego contended suspension/removal were motivated by his Hispanic ethnicity and male sex and pointed to alleged differential treatment of coworkers. | Secretary showed legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (misconduct, insubordination, conflicts, failure to complete tasks) and lack of comparable comparators. | Court: No reasonable factfinder could conclude discrimination; summary judgment for Secretary. |
| Retaliation | Abrego argued his EEO filings led to the Jan 2014 suspension and Dec 2014 removal (noting temporal proximity to Oct 2014 complaint). | Secretary asserted adverse actions resulted from documented misconduct; temporal proximity alone insufficient and no other evidence of pretext or causal link. | Court: Temporal proximity without other circumstantial evidence insufficient; retaliation claim fails. |
| Hostile work environment | Abrego claimed supervisors were short‑tempered, excessively monitoring, and created a hostile environment tied to race/sex/EEO activity. | Secretary maintained incidents were isolated, not severe or pervasive, and not shown to be based on protected class or retaliation. | Court: Conduct not objectively severe or pervasive and not shown to be based on protected trait or retaliation; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation and standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must present specific facts to create genuine issue)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for assessing circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (whether evidence permits reasonable factfinder to find discriminatory cause)
- Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (hostile work environment elements and materially adverse action standard)