Erika Langenbach v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated, 761 F.3d 792

Background

Erika Langenbach worked at Wal‑Mart from 1998, rose to Jewelry Department Manager, applied multiple times for Assistant Manager and entered the Management‑In‑Training program in 2008; she became an Assistant Manager thereafter.
As an Assistant Manager she received negative reviews for delegation, time management, and leadership; she was placed on Performance Improvement Plans in 2009 and 2010 with follow‑ups showing insufficient improvement.
Langenbach took FMLA leave in summer 2010 for surgery; Wal‑Mart approved continuous leave and extended her leave to September 13, 2010 based on a doctor’s note.
After returning from leave she was reassigned to the overnight shift, received a poor mid‑year evaluation, was placed on the 2010 PIP, and was terminated on March 1, 2011 after follow‑ups found she had not met PIP targets.
Langenbach sued claiming (1) FMLA retaliation (adverse actions after leave including termination), (2) Title VII sex discrimination by delayed promotion to Assistant Manager, disparate pay, and refusal to promote further; district court granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues and Key Cases Cited

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA retaliation (direct method)	Wal‑Mart took materially adverse actions (bad review, PIP, night shift, termination) because she used FMLA	Negative ratings/PIPs and shift change are not materially adverse; termination was for longstanding poor performance	Court: Only termination was materially adverse; timing and record do not show causal link — summary judgment affirmed
FMLA retaliation (indirect method)	She was meeting expectations and treated worse than employees who did not take FMLA	She was not meeting employer’s legitimate expectations at termination	Court: Evidence shows poor performance at time of firing; indirect claim fails
Title VII — delayed promotion to Assistant Manager	Ten‑year delay in promoting to Assistant Manager compared to men shows sex discrimination	Male comparators had different qualifications (meat‑cutting skill, college credits); Wal‑Mart’s minimums were applied	Court: Comparators not similarly situated; circumstantial evidence insufficient — summary judgment affirmed
Title VII — disparate pay / failure to promote beyond Assistant Manager	Paid less because not promoted at same rate; also claims denial of promotions beyond AM	Pay differences tied to title/seniority; she admitted not qualified for higher jobs and did not apply	Court: Claims derivative of delayed promotion; since delay claim fails, disparate pay/further‑promotion claims fail

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Scruggs v. Carrier Corp., 688 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2012) (direct/indirect proof frameworks for FMLA retaliation)
Haywood v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 323 F.3d 524 (negative evaluations alone not adverse action)
Cole v. Illinois, 562 F.3d 812 (implementation of PIP not a materially adverse action)
Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944 (schedule changes not adverse absent exploitation of known vulnerability)
Washington v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 420 F.3d 658 (schedule change exploited caregiver vulnerability can be adverse)
McCann v. Iroquois Hosp. Corp., 622 F.3d 745 (analysis of schedule change and vulnerability)
Pagel v. TIN Inc., 695 F.3d 622 ("convincing mosaic" standard for circumstantial proof of retaliation)
Good v. Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670 (circumstantial evidence must point directly to illegal motive)
Caskey v. Colgate‑Palmolive Co., 535 F.3d 585 (indirect method elements for retaliation)
Peele v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 319 (whether employee met employer’s expectations at time of adverse action)
Young v. James Green Mgmt., Inc., 327 F.3d 616 (relevance of decisionmaker involvement in declarant’s statements)
Collins v. American Red Cross, 715 F.3d 994 (McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
Naficy v. Illinois Dep’t of Human Servs., 697 F.3d 504 (prima facie discrimination elements)
Bannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 503 F.3d 623 (delay in promotion can be adverse action)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (similarly situated comparator standard)
Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, 589 F.3d 357 (comparator analysis)
Srail v. Village of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940 (summary judgment on comparator questions)
Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 653 F.3d 582 (direct method circumstantial evidence examples)
Grayson v. City of Chicago, 317 F.3d 745 (plaintiff must apply for job to establish failure‑to‑promote claim)
Roney v. Illinois Dep’t of Transportation, 474 F.3d 455 (300‑day filing rule under Title VII)
Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676 (relevance of employer considerations like education/experience)