Cung Hnin v. TOA (USA) LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8430
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Cung Hnin, a Chin (Myanmar) employee, worked in TOA’s metal-stamping plant and was terminated on December 10, 2010 after an internal investigation into a sexual-harassment complaint by coworker April Brock and reports that Hnin intimidated coworkers and told them to slow work for overtime.
- TOA’s handbook provided for progressive discipline but listed sexual-harassment violations as grounds for immediate dismissal; TOA investigated Brock’s complaint, interviewed witnesses, interviewed Hnin, and Clayton (Executive Director) made the termination decision after Hnin reacted defiantly in the interview.
- Hnin sued under Title VII for national-origin discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for TOA, and Hnin appealed.
- On appeal, Hnin argued (1) disparate treatment based on national origin by comparing treatment of four American-born employees, and (2) Title VII retaliation based on a December 2009 complaint he made about under-promotion of Chin associates.
- The Seventh Circuit analyzed comparator similarity, TOA’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons (sex-based harassment, intimidation/overtime instructions, and defiance during investigation), and whether Hnin created a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence linking his protected complaint to his termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hnin raised a prima facie Title VII national-origin discrimination claim (similarly situated comparator) | Hnin: American-born comparators received warnings or longer investigations before termination, showing more favorable treatment | TOA: Comparators’ misconduct materially differed (non-sex-based, different facts); Smith (sex-based) was treated the same (terminated) | No. Comparators were not sufficiently similar; no triable issue on the prima facie comparator element |
| Whether TOA’s proffered reasons for termination were pretext for national-origin discrimination | Hnin: Conduct did not amount to sexual harassment; TOA skipped its progressive-discipline policy and was inconsistent | TOA: Handbook allows immediate dismissal for sexual-harassment violations; decisionmaker honestly relied on multiple investigation findings including Hnin’s defiance | No. Court concluded TOA honestly believed its reasons; no evidence of pretext |
| Whether Hnin showed direct or circumstantial evidence of Title VII retaliation (causal link) | Hnin: Suspicious timing, comparator treatment, pretext, and statistical evidence of fewer Chin promotions form a "convincing mosaic" | TOA: Twelve-month gap undermines timing; comparators and statistics do not support causation; two Chin associates were promoted after Hnin’s complaint | No. Timing and other evidence insufficient to create convincing mosaic; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether statistical evidence established a pattern of discrimination supporting retaliation claim | Hnin: Statistics show fewer promotions of Chin associates, supporting retaliatory motive | TOA: Statistics lack context (qualifications, applications) and do not rebut nondiscriminatory explanations | No. Statistical evidence was inadequate and did not create an inference of retaliatory intent |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Andrews v. CBOCS West, Inc., 743 F.3d 230 (elements of prima facie case)
- Smiley v. Columbia Coll. Chi., 714 F.3d 998 (pretext inquiry focuses on employer's honest belief)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation required for Title VII retaliation)
- Majors v. General Elec. Co., 714 F.3d 527 (similarly situated comparator analysis)
- Rodgers v. White, 657 F.3d 511 (need for similarity of misconduct to infer discriminatory treatment)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (definition of materially adverse action in retaliation context)