Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 653 F.3d 582

Kraft outsourced many positions at its Glenview Tech Center in 2008 and set up an internal process for affected employees to apply for remaining or new positions.
Diaz and Peña, both Hispanic hourly employees, sought to transfer to open positions but were not hired for the sanitation or senior technician roles after outsourcing decisions.
Robles, a salaried employee, claims his pay remained at grade 2 despite a 2001 posting for a grade 3, and he alleges Ward and Meyers earn more due to racial bias.
Michalec, the supervisor with hiring and pay-setting authority, allegedly treated Hispanics differently, including assigning disfavored tasks and making biased statements.
Flores, though not a party on appeal, provided evidence of discriminatory remarks by Michalec in hiring decisions, which the district court found probative but not linked in time to Diaz/Peña’s claims.
The district court granted Kraft summary judgment on all claims, and the Seventh Circuit reversed in part, remanding Diaz and Peña’s failure-to-hire claims while affirming Robles’s disparate-pay claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Hispanics Diaz and Peña present direct/disparate evidence of bias in failure-to-hire?	Diaz/Peña claim Michalec’s racial bias influenced hiring decisions.	Kraft argues non-discriminatory reasons for hiring outcomes and that Diaz/Peña weren’t improperly excluded.	Yes; direct evidence/question of bias survives summary judgment for Diaz/Peña.
Is there triable evidence of discrimination in the sanitation hiring process under direct proof?	Hispanics were prioritized/disadvantaged differently; Flores’s comment supports bias.	Process allowed qualified candidates; similarities with Flores undermine inference.	There is enough evidence to go to trial on Diaz/Peña’s sanitation claims.
Does Robles’s disparate pay claim survive under either direct or indirect proof?	Promotion to grade 3 never occurred; pay disparity with non-Hispanic co-workers.	Salary grades tied to positions; redlining policy allows higher pay to remain for two years after transfer.	Robles’s disparate pay claim fails; grant of summary judgment affirmed.

Darchak v. City of Chicago Bd. of Educ., 580 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence categories and nexus to discrimination)
Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982) (anti-discrimination focus on individual, not group)
City of Los Angeles, Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1983) (statutory discrimination analysis context)
Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (similarly situated analysis; burden shifting)
Ford v. Minteq Shapes and Services, Inc., 587 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2009) (indirect method requires valid comparator)
Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2008) (focus on direct proof when evaluating discrimination)
Hasan v. Foley & Lardner LLP, 552 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2008) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence framework)
Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr., 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review for summary-judgment posture)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)