David McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive, Inc.
940 F.3d 360
7th Cir.2019Background
- McDaniel, a 55-year-old Material Handler employed by Progress Rail since 2005, was disciplined in 2016 for cell-phone policy violations and suspended one day. He later suffered a hand injury on Feb. 16, 2017 while handling a 106-pound idler and admitted in reports that he "lifted" it.
- Progress Rail’s Shop Rule 31 banned lifting loads over 35 pounds without mechanical assistance and prohibited visible cell phones on equipment; violations could lead to discipline up to discharge. Investigatory interviews, union representation, and a Safety Committee review are part of the disciplinary process.
- After investigatory interviews and disciplinary hearings (with Safety Committee review of documents including McDaniel’s statements and medical report), Progress Rail terminated McDaniel for violating Shop Rule 31.
- McDaniel had earlier complained to a supervisor (Pekarik) that his direct supervisor Howard favored younger employees in overtime distribution; he later alleged Howard retaliated against him and influenced discipline.
- McDaniel filed EEOC charge and sued under the ADEA for age discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Progress Rail, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA disparate-treatment (age discrimination) | McDaniel contends suspension and termination were based on age and that younger coworkers were treated better | Progress Rail says actions were lawful discipline for policy violations; no evidence tying decisions to age | Affirmed for Progress Rail — McDaniel failed to identify similarly situated comparators or other evidence that age was the but-for cause |
| ADEA retaliation | McDaniel contends his complaint about Howard’s overtime practices was protected activity that led to reassignment, discipline, and termination | Progress Rail asserts discipline and termination were for legitimate, nondiscriminatory safety violations; no causal link to complaint | Affirmed for Progress Rail — no evidence of causation or suitable comparators showing retaliation |
| Cat’s-paw liability (biased supervisor influence) | McDaniel argues Howard’s alleged bias infected the Safety Committee’s decision | Progress Rail notes Safety Committee conducted its own review, used additional materials, and Howard was not a committee member | Affirmed for Progress Rail — no evidence Howard harbored age-based animus or that his input proximately caused the adverse actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Wrolstad v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc’y, 911 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2018) (ADEA protects employees 40 and older; but‑for causation required)
- Martino v. MCI Commc’ns Serv., Inc., 574 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 2009) (employer decisionmaker need not be a paragon of independence to defeat cat’s‑paw claim)
- Johnson v. Advocate Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2018) (court may evaluate discrimination claims holistically beyond McDonnell Douglas)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (holistic ‘‘whether evidence permits a reasonable factfinder’’ standard at summary judgment)
- Skiba v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2018) (insufficient comparator evidence defeats prima facie case)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements and purpose of similarly situated comparator analysis)
- Gates v. Caterpillar, Inc., 513 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2008) (typical comparator factors: same supervisor, same standards, similar conduct)
- Schandelmeier‑Bartels v. Chicago Park Dist., 634 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2011) (explains cat’s‑paw theory in employment discrimination)
- Lewis v. Wilkie, 909 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2018) (McDonnell Douglas framework in retaliation context)
- Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2016) (elements of a prima facie retaliation claim)