Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Trust Co.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10137
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Javier Cortezano illegally entered the U.S. in 1997 and later married Kristi Cortezano in 2001.
- Kristi was hired by Salin Bank in March 2007, quickly promoted, and later co-owned accounts with Javier.
- Javier obtained an ITIN to operate accounts despite undocumented status; his business venture failed and he returned to Mexico in 2007.
- Kristi disclosed Javier's status to her supervisor in early 2008; Hubbs prepared a report labeling Javier an illegal alien.
- Salin Bank considered firing Kristi; she was ultimately terminated February 19, 2008 for refusing to attend a meeting; district court granted summary judgment for Salin Bank on all claims.
- Kristi filed suit alleging Title VII discrimination (based on her marriage to an undocumented alien); district court granted summary judgment; on appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, distinguishing alienage from protected national-origin status and addressing state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII protects against discrimination based on a spouse’s alienage | Kristi | Salin Bank | No Title VII protection for alienage-based discrimination |
| If not protected, whether Kristi’s Title VII claim survives due to spousal status | Kristi | Salin Bank | Discrimination based on alienage not protected; claim fails under Title VII |
| Role of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b in limiting discrimination claims | Kristi | Salin Bank | §1324b excludes unauthorized aliens; does not extend to protect Kristi as spouse; district court correct |
| Whether Indiana tort claims survive after federal dismissal | Kristi | Salin Bank | District court properly resolved state-law claims after federal claims were dismissed; remand on minor-matter-striking issue only |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86 (Supreme Court 1973) (national origin scope limited to ancestry; not citizenship/alienage status protections under Title VII)
- McCreary v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 132 F.3d 1159 (7th Cir. 1998) (extreme and outrageous conduct standard in Indiana emotional distress cases remains narrow)
- Chicago Reg'l Council of Carpenters v. Village of Schaumburg, 644 F.3d 353 (7th Cir. 2011) (assessing evidentiary standards and reliance on public records in summary judgment)
- Ineichen v. Ameritech, 410 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2005) (discusses protections under Title VII for certain discrimination theories)