712 F.3d 1062
7th Cir.2013Background
- Northington, a long-time employee, faced threats from Sims tied to Maghett; Collins and Hoskin-Collins, dating, attempted to mediate the dispute.
- Sims pleaded guilty to battery; Cook County ordered SCOB restricting contact with Northington at work.
- Northington reported harassment to H&M officers but did not allege discrimination based on race or gender.
- During a safety inspection, Northington was suspected of drug use; Concentra required a second test after a cold sample, which she did not provide.
- Northington was terminated on May 2, 2008 for refusing to test; H&M relied on internal investigations by Hayes and two other officers, who were unaware of the criminal complaint.
- District court granted summary judgment to H&M; it also imposed a discovery sanction for failure to preserve electronic information, which Northington challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Northington engaged in protected activity under Title VII | Northington filed complaints against Sims; claims harmed by retaliation. | Harassment was personal, not based on race or gender; not protected activity. | No protected activity found; retaliation claim fails. |
| Whether there was a causal link between protected activity and termination | Termination followed complaints against Sims. | No protected activity, so no causal inference. | No causal connection established. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given any genuine facts | Genuine disputes existed about protected activity and retaliation. | No genuine issues; record supports judgment for H&M. | Summary judgment proper. |
| Whether the discovery sanction precludes summary judgment | Sanction could create adverse inference favoring Northington. | Sanction not based on bad faith; only bars inference of lack of discrimination. | Sanction did not preclude summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fass v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2008) (adverse inference requires bad faith destruction of evidence not shown here)
- Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2008) (protective activity requires more than vague complaints)
- Kodl v. Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. 45, 490 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2007) (direct/indirect proof framework for retaliation)
- Amrhein v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 546 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2008) (indirect method elements for retaliation)
- O’Rourke v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, 635 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of summary-judgment determinations)