Eric Huang v. Continental Casualty Company
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11082
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Eric Huang, a long‑time CNA systems/software engineer, was reassigned in 2007 to a four‑person team with a rotating weekend on‑call pager duty (one member every fourth weekend).
- Beginning August 2007 Huang repeatedly refused to carry the pager and be on call at home on assigned weekends, citing family obligations; he offered to come into the office on Sundays but would not remain on call at home.
- Huang twice complained to HR about supervisors (one email about a supervisor saying Huang was "pissing [him] off"; an earlier vague complaint about "favoritism").
- After repeated refusals and a final warning in December 2007 that failure to comply could lead to termination, CNA discharged Huang; an attempt to retrieve belongings led to security/police involvement but no charges.
- Huang sued for race/national‑origin discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 and for retaliation; the district court granted CNA summary judgment, and Huang appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huang met employer’s legitimate performance expectations for a prima facie discrimination claim | Huang: his Sunday‑in‑office proposal satisfied scheduling needs; family obligations justified refusal; pager duty wasn’t in his written job description | CNA: employer may set scheduling needs; Huang repeatedly refused the on‑call requirement and offer didn’t meet the on‑call need; job duties need not be in a formal description | Held: Huang failed to show he met legitimate expectations; employer lawfully required on‑call weekends and need not list every duty in job description |
| Whether similarly situated non‑Chinese employees were treated more favorably | Huang: cited two coworkers who got schedule accommodations or worked from home | CNA: those employees did not repeatedly refuse an on‑call order; not similarly situated | Held: Huang did not identify a comparably insubordinate non‑Chinese employee, so no same‑treatment proof |
| Whether CNA’s reason for firing (refusal of on‑call assignments) was pretext for discrimination | Huang: argues pretext via alleged illegitimacy/unequal application of pager duty | CNA: proffered reason is legitimate and supported by undisputed facts | Held: Court need not reach pretext because prima facie case fails; pretext argument also fails on its merits |
| Whether Huang engaged in protected activity supporting a retaliation claim | Huang: his HR complaints about a supervisor’s comment and prior favoritism constituted protected complaints | CNA: those complaints were not protests of unlawful discrimination | Held: Those complaints were not shown to be about unlawful discrimination; retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2010) (elements of prima facie discrimination under indirect method)
- Renken v. Gregory, 541 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2008) (job duties determined by actual expectations, not only written descriptions)
- Collins v. American Red Cross, 715 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2013) (employer entitled to judge whether employee meets scheduling needs)
- Naik v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 627 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2010) (employer discretion in determining satisfaction of work expectations)
- Tomanovich v. City of Indianapolis, 457 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2006) (retaliation requires complaint about unlawful discrimination)
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (§ 1981 encompasses retaliation claims)