Belinda Egan v. Freedom Bank
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20205
7th Cir.2011Background
- Egan was hired as vice president of retail banking at Freedom Bank in July 2007.
- In September 2007, a bank director Burton propositioned Egan sexually; she declined.
- Egan reported the harassment to HR on September 24, 2007; Burton resigned shortly after.
- Barajas became bank president in late 2007; he later advised Egan that she would be funded for graduate banking courses but also noted turnover in leadership.
- February 2008: Barajas eliminated Egan’s VP retail banking position, and four new hires were made in Barajas’s tenure.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the bank on claims of retaliation, hostile work environment, and gender discrimination; the Seventh Circuit reversed on retaliation and remanded, while upholding dismissal of hostile environment and gender discrimination claims; magistrate-order sanctions were found not reviewable on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Egan showed a causal link between protected activity and termination | Egan contends retaliation inference exists from timing and Barajas’s comment to Dempsey. | Bank argues elimination was a business decision due to structure and efficiency. | There is a material dispute; jury could find retaliation. |
| Whether the hostile environment claim survives summary judgment | Egan argues a board member’s sexual comments create a hostile environment. | A single comment is not sufficiently severe or pervasive. | Hostile environment claim should be dismissed. |
| Whether gender discrimination claim should proceed | Egan asserts sex-based discrimination in promotion decisions. | Bank shows no similarly situated comparator or qualifications issue. | Summary judgment on discrimination claim affirmed. |
| Whether the magistrate judge sanctions orders are reviewable on appeal | Egan seeks appellate review of sanctions by magistrate judge. | No jurisdiction to review magistrate orders absent consent/finality. | Appellate lacks jurisdiction over magistrate orders; remand for district court consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 F.2d 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and evidence standard guidance)
- Haywood v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 323 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2003) (retaliation standard requires but-for causation or permissible inference)
- Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 604 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2010) (retaliation proof may rely on circumstantial evidence)
- Poer v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct or indirect method for Title VII retaliation)
- Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment standard: genuine issues of material fact preclude)
- Bodenstab v. County of Cook, 569 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2009) (gender discrimination requires developed argument and record)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 486 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1988) (jurisdictional review of final judgments on appeal)
- Directv, Inc. v. Barczewski, 604 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2010) (magistrate judge decisions review limitations without consent)