Darrel Smith v. Denise Bray
681 F.3d 888
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Darrel Smith, African American, alleged race discrimination and retaliation by two former Equistar employees (Bianchetta and Bray) after persistent harassment by Bianchetta and others.
- Equistar was bankrupt; Smith's only remaining claims proceeded against individuals, including Bray, the plant HR manager.
- Smith claimed Bray participated in terminating him by influencing plant management and drafting the termination report at headquarters' request.
- Termination occurred August 4, 2006, for absence without medical certification, following a prolonged absence and prior discrimination complaints.
- District court granted Bray summary judgment; Smith appeals alleging Bray's cat's-paw liability and retaliatory motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bray participate in Smith's termination? | Bray heavily influenced decision-makers and wrote the termination report. | Bray did not personally fire Smith and any input does not prove participation in a discriminatory termination. | Yes, Bray participated via cat's-paw theory; input at multiple stages created a genuine fact issue. |
| Was there admissible evidence of Bray's retaliatory motive? | Evidence shows Bray ignored complaints and failed to investigate discrimination, implying retaliatory motive. | Admissible evidence did not show Bray shared or acted with retaliatory motive; much relied on subordinate's statements. | No, plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence that Bray acted with retaliatory motive. |
| Can co-conspirator hearsay be used to prove Bray's motive or conspiracy? | Statements by Bianchetta indicating collusion should be admissible against Bray under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). | Waiver and reliability concerns invalidate using Bianchetta's statements against Bray; no admissible conspiracy proof. | De novo review rejects the co-conspirator theory as evidence against Bray; insufficient admissible shows of conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (cat's-paw liability applies to employer liability for retaliatory action)
- Humphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2007) (Title VII/§1981 standards apply to retaliation proof)
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (retaliation standard and direct/indirect proof framework)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (convincing mosaic circumstantial evidence framework for retaliation)
- Alexander v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Family Services, 263 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2001) (cat's-paw liability standard in §1981/1983 cases)
- Lust v. Sealy, Inc., 383 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2004) (subordinate's input can be a triggering factor for liability)
- Little v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, 369 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2004) (supervisor's input can implicate corporate liability in discrimination)
- Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co., 28 F.3d 1446 (7th Cir. 1994) (cat's-paw-like liability framework)
- Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1989) (evidence of concerted action and agency considerations in conspiracy)
- United States v. Kelley, 864 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1989) (joint venture/conspiracy evidentiary treatment)
- Fane v. Locke Reynolds, LLP, 480 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (§1981/Title VII procedural considerations)