Angela Riley v. City of Kokomo, Indiana, Housi
909 F.3d 182
7th Cir.2018Background
- Angela Riley worked for Kokomo Housing Authority (KHA) from 2008 until termination in May 2014; she has bipolar disorder, PTSD, anxiety, depression, and seizures and had intermittently taken FMLA leave.
- KHA previously granted Riley intermittent FMLA leave (2010 onward) and provided 43 days of FMLA leave in Sept–Oct 2013; Riley took additional medical appointments in Feb 2014 and was given time off despite KHA saying her leave was exhausted.
- Disputes with coworkers and supervisors led to complaints on both sides; in March 2014 Riley received a written warning for facilitating an unauthorized tenant transfer.
- On May 7, 2014 Riley objected to an allegedly unauthorized move, called HUD to report the matter, and declined to meet with her COO; COO Cook decided to terminate Riley the same day and signed the notice May 9; termination was presented May 12.
- Riley sued alleging FMLA interference and retaliation, ADA failure-to-accommodate, discrimination and retaliation, Title VII retaliation, and Fair Housing Act retaliation. District court granted summary judgment for KHA; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference/retaliation (May 9 leave request) | Riley was fired in retaliation for requesting leave on May 9 | Cook decided to terminate Riley on May 7 (before May 9 request) | Court: No causal link; termination decision preceded leave request; summary judgment affirmed |
| FMLA retaliation for earlier leaves (2013–2014) | March 2014 warning and later termination were retaliatory for prior FMLA use | Timing and facts (5 months gap, allowed Feb appointments) and legitimate reason (unauthorized transfer) show no pretext | Court: Temporal gap and lack of other evidence insufficient to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| ADA failure-to-accommodate | Riley argues KHA denied reasonable accommodation | KHA contends charge did not allege failure-to-accommodate to EEOC | Court: Failure-to-accommodate claim not reasonably related to EEOC charge; claim barred; summary judgment affirmed |
| ADA/Title VII discrimination & retaliation | KHA disciplined and terminated Riley due to disability and protected activity | KHA proffers nondiscriminatory reasons (policy violations, insubordination); plaintiff’s filings were undeveloped and offered no evidence of pretext or comparator | Court: Plaintiff failed to develop coherent arguments or evidence of discriminatory/retaliatory intent; summary judgment affirmed |
| FHA retaliation | Riley claims calling HUD about alleged fraud was protected FHA activity and caused termination | KHA: Riley reported procedural mismanagement, not discriminatory housing practice; no reasonable belief of discrimination | Court: Riley did not reasonably believe she reported housing discrimination; HUD referral alone insufficient; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Valenti v. Lawson, 889 F.3d 427 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr., 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir.) (elements of FMLA interference)
- Freelain v. Vill. of Oak Park, 888 F.3d 895 (7th Cir.) (elements of FMLA retaliation)
- Skiba v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708 (7th Cir.) (appellate affirmation on any ground supported by record)
- Ennin v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC, 878 F.3d 590 (7th Cir.) (employer decision predating leave request defeats FMLA retaliation claim)
- Guzman v. Brown Cty., 884 F.3d 633 (7th Cir.) (FMLA retaliation principles)
- Nicholson v. Pulte Homes Corp., 690 F.3d 819 (7th Cir.) (FMLA interference analysis)
- Cole v. Illinois, 562 F.3d 812 (7th Cir.) (temporal proximity alone insufficient for retaliation)
- Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841 (7th Cir.) (same)
- Tibbs v. Admin. Office of the Ill. Cts., 860 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (need other evidence beyond timing to show pretext)
- Harden v. Marion Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 799 F.3d 857 (7th Cir.) (pretext requires more than mistaken judgment)
- Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir.) (pretext standard)
- Whitaker v. Milwaukee Cty., 772 F.3d 802 (7th Cir.) (EEOC charge exhaustion requirement for ADA claims)
- Green v. Nat’l Steel Corp., 197 F.3d 894 (7th Cir.) (failure-to-accommodate distinct from discriminatory discharge claim)
- Domka v. Portage Cty., 523 F.3d 776 (7th Cir.) (burden to oppose summary judgment and preserve issues on appeal)
- Econ. Folding Box Corp. v. Anchor Frozen Foods Corp., 515 F.3d 718 (7th Cir.) (issues not presented to district court cannot be raised on appeal)
- Beard v. Whitley Cty. REMC, 840 F.2d 405 (7th Cir.) (court not required to research and construct arguments)
- Schaefer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equip., LLC, 839 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.) (undeveloped arguments waived)
- Garrison v. Burke, 165 F.3d 565 (7th Cir.) (statute of limitations and timely filing)
- Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc., 839 F.3d 556 (7th Cir.) (retaliation requires sincere and reasonable belief in discrimination)
- Roger Whitmore's Auto. Servs., Inc. v. Lake Cty., 424 F.3d 659 (7th Cir.) (summary judgment requires more than bare speculation)
- In re Veluchamy, 879 F.3d 808 (7th Cir.) (issues not presented below cannot be raised on appeal)
- Houlihan v. City of Chi., 871 F.3d 540 (7th Cir.) (speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)