Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
811 F.3d 866
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Bagwe, an Indian-born Operations Manager at Sedgwick, alleged she received lower pay and was terminated because of race/national origin and in retaliation for complaints; she sued under §1981, Title VII, and the Illinois Human Rights Act.
- She was promoted in 2007, received raises in 2007–2008, but had recurring interpersonal complaints from subordinates and coworkers, culminating in a Performance Improvement Plan in March 2009.
- Bagwe complained about pay and later reported alleged racial remarks by supervisors (including comments about an "old Indian husband" and an alleged insult on the day of termination). Colleague Resources investigated and concluded her compensation was fair and found no tangible evidence of harassment/discrimination.
- Sedgwick terminated Bagwe in August 2009 for interpersonal/leadership issues; multiple managers participated in the decision and later said the termination stemmed from a "continuing lack of trust." She was replaced by a white American who started at a higher salary but was later terminated for performance issues.
- Bagwe filed EEOC charges in December 2009 and sued in 2011; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on statute-of-limitations and merits grounds; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory termination (race/national origin) | Termination was motivated by race/national origin; cites biased remarks and purported pretext for stated leadership reasons | Termination resulted from documented interpersonal and leadership complaints; proffered reasons consistent and supported by record | Affirmed for defendants — plaintiff failed to produce direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to infer discriminatory motive |
| Pay discrimination (§1981, Title VII, IHRA) — timeliness & merits | Paid less than white/American peers; at least 2008 raise claim timely under §1981; comparative salary evidence shows discrimination | Many pay claims time-barred; compensatory comparisons lack necessary detail to establish similarly situated comparators; employer explained pay differences by experience | Limited 2008-raise claim not time-barred but fails on merits — no adequate comparators or circumstantial proof of discriminatory motive |
| Retaliation for complaints | Repeated protected complaints led to escalating retaliation: PIP, investigation, termination, and post-termination negative reference | Employer responded with investigation and PIP based on documented complaints; timing and evidence do not establish causation or pretext | Affirmed for defendants — PIP/investigation not materially adverse or shown to be pretextual; termination tied to legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons |
| Evidentiary/hearsay issues re: post-termination reference (Matrix) | Sedgwick told prospective employer she was "a problem," proving retaliatory motive/post-termination harm | Evidence is inadmissible hearsay and ambiguous; even if true, statement doesn’t show discriminatory motive | Court treated the Matrix evidence as hearsay and not probative of discrimination or retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes the burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
- Adams v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 324 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2003) (direct method requires circumstantial evidence pointing directly to discrimination)
- Tank v. T‑Mobile USA, Inc., 758 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2014) (comparative evidence and similarly‑situated analysis; paycheck accrual discussion)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (pretext requires identifying weaknesses/inconsistencies in employer’s rationale)
- Oest v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrs., 240 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2001) (context/timing of remarks relevant to discriminatory inference)
- Dass v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 675 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 2012) (isolated or untimely remarks insufficient to prove discrimination)