Barton v. Zimmer, Inc.
662 F.3d 448
7th Cir.2011Background
- Barton's age-57 status and role as Director of Sales Training; Richardson became supervisor in May 2004 and began stripping Barton of selling-skills duties over the next year.
- Barton filed age-discrimination complaints with Richardson and the EEOC; Abel investigated and Richardson was terminated in September 2005.
- Barton's medical/psychological issues intensified after Richardson's conduct; Barton took FMLA leave and later retired after a stress-related disability.
- Milton became Sales Training Director; Barton was assigned to update a knee class, which he contested as beyond his qualifications and as retaliation.
- Barton sued Zimmer for ADEA discrimination and retaliation and FMLA interference; district court granted summary judgment for Zimmer on all but Richardson's alleged discrimination.
- On appeal, the court addressed whether front pay could remedy ADEA discrimination and whether there were triable issues on retaliation and FMLA interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Richardson's removal of Barton's duties constitute ADEA discrimination? | Barton: age-based removal of duties is discriminatory. | Zimmer: no viable ADEA remedy since no loss of pay/benefits and no causal link to disability. | No viable ADEA remedy; causation insufficient for reinstatement or front pay. |
| Is there evidence of ADEA retaliation by Abel or Milton for Barton's prior complaints? | Barton: retaliation through reassignment and assignment of knee-class task. | Zimmer: no adverse action causally tied to protected activity; actions were not retaliatory. | No retaliation; district court proper in granting summary judgment for Zimmer. |
| Was Barton restored to an equivalent position after FMLA leave, satisfying FMLA interference? | Barton: returned duties differed and were not equivalent to pre-leave position. | Zimmer: pay, title, and benefits were intact; duties changed due to business needs, not leave. | Summary judgment for Zimmer; Barton not entitled to FMLA interference relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2001) (front pay may be an equitable remedy in lieu of reinstatement under appropriate circumstances)
- Franzoni v. Hartmarx Corp., 300 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal transfer can preclude ADEA remedy when no loss of pay/benefits occurs)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for causation required for ADEA discrimination claims)
- Horwitz v. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2001) (retaliation standard requires but-for causation; adverse action need not be the most severe)
- Lapka v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2008) (examples of materially adverse actions in retaliation cases; not all negative actions qualify)
- Crady v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Ind., 993 F.2d 132 (7th Cir. 1993) (serious adverse actions required for retaliation/sous-claim evaluation)
- Van Antwerp v. City of Peoria, 627 F.3d 295 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard for adverse action in anti-discrimination claims)
- Righi v. SMC Corp., 632 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of summary judgment with factual determinations)