Davis v. Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wisconsin, L.P., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13636

Davis, an African American inside sales employee, was terminated for allegedly falsifying a customer sale to obtain a commission under Time Warner’s zero-tolerance Employee Guidelines.
Management, including Cleboski, Fraser, and Archie, investigated the incident and approved termination; multiple managers consulted before deciding.
Davis was reinstated with back pay after customer information supported his position; a performance improvement plan followed his return.
Time Warner adopted a new compensation plan for 2007 shifting some commissionable work to the outside team, which Davis claims reduced his earnings potential.
Davis filed Title VII and §1981 claims alleging discriminatory and retaliatory termination and discriminatory and retaliatory compensation; the district court granted Time Warner summary judgment on all claims.
The Seventh Circuit reviews de novo, applying the direct method for discrimination and retaliation claims, and affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Time Warner.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination in termination	Davis argues race biased termination.	Time Warner fired based on violation of clear guidelines, not race.	No triable issue; no direct link shown between race and termination.
Retaliation in termination	Termination was in retaliation for Davis’s protected complaints.	Termination due to legitimate investigation findings, not retaliation.	No causal link proven; timing insufficient without more evidence.
Discrimination in compensation	New plan discriminates against African Americans by reallocating commissions.	Plan applied overall; no discriminatory intent shown; potential disparate impact not proven for this claim.	No evidence of discriminatory intent; plan applied to all inside team members.
Retaliation in compensation	Compensation changes and HON/monitoring implied retaliation for complaints.	Changes contemporaneous with complaints but not causally connected; no retaliatory action proven.	No causal link established; changes not shown as retaliatory.

Humphries v. CBOCS W., Inc., 474 F.3d 387 (7th Cir.2007) (set-up evidence required; distinguishable facts here)
Lang v. Ill. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 361 F.3d 416 (7th Cir.2004) (context matters in motive inference; not a setup here)
Dash v. N.L.R.B., 793 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir.1986) (no immediate retaliation without investigation evidence here)
Casna v. City of Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420 (7th Cir.2009) (informal protected activity can support retaliation claims)
Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., 636 F.3d 312 (7th Cir.2011) (proximate timing is not alone enough for causation)
Silverman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 637 F.3d 729 (7th Cir.2011) (mosaic of circumstantial evidence required for discrimination claim)
Phelan v. Cook County, 463 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.2006) (protective action and adverse action considerations in retaliation)