Doris Keeton v. Morningstar, Incorp
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 732
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Keeton, African-American, sued Morningstar for race discrimination and retaliation under §1981 and Title VII; district court granted summary judgment due to lack of timely response.
- Keeton failed to respond to Morningstar’s Local Rule 56.1 facts; the court credited Morningstar’s statements to the extent supported by evidence.
- Three Compliance Consultants (Keeton, Derner, Bentzler) were lateral hires; initial salaries set by market factors with Keeton initially earning more than some but ending up lowest after increases.
- February–March 2010 incidents involved disputes between Keeton and Bentzler; management investigated but no discipline imposed on Keeton; Keeton alleged favoritism toward Bentzler.
- After a June 2010 EEOC charge and August 2010 suit, Keeton amended her complaint to include retaliation; discovery produced private emails; January 2011 investigation concluded Keeton lacked authority to access emails.
- March 25, 2011 Morningstar moved for summary judgment; Keeton failed to timely respond; judgment for Morningstar entered May 23, 2011; Keeton sought leave to file a late response instanter, which the court denied as moot; Keeton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the late summary judgment response was properly deemed moot | Keeton argues the case wasn't moot because issue remained live when motion filed | Morningstar argues mootness was procedural; final judgment denied the pending motion | Affirmed; motion deemed procedurally moot but merits upheld |
| Whether the denial of leave to file a late response was an abuse of discretion | Keeton contends excusable neglect justified late filing | Morningstar contends strict adherence to deadlines justifies denial | Affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Morningstar met its burden to show no discrimination | Keeton argues she was paid less than similarly situated white employees due to race | Morningstar offers market-based and performance-based salary justifications | Discrimination claim failed; no evidence of pretext |
| Whether Keeton adequately proved retaliation | Keeton alleges protected activity and adverse actions in retaliation | Morningstar shows no protected activity or adverse action linked to retaliation | Retaliation claims failed for lack of protected activity and adverse action |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 F.3d 388 (1980) (mootness involves live issues, not nonjusticiable claims)
- Gates v. City of Chicago, 623 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2010) (mootness and live-issue analysis in appellate review)
- Bay Area B. Council, Inc. v. FTC, 423 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2005) (courts may rely on movant's undisputed facts when nonresponse to Rule 56.1)
- Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2006) (strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1; denial of late filing within discretion)
- Everroad v. Scott Truck Systems, Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (framework for indirect evidence in discrimination and pretext analysis)