Finlay v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc.
1:10-cv-05622
| N.D. Ill. | May 30, 2012Background
- Finlay sues Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc. for Title VII retaliation after severance benefits were cut and prior benefits demanded back; ERISA and IWA claims dismissed; remaining Title VII claim proceeds with Beam moving for summary judgment.
- Finlay was Beam's SVP/CMO from Jan 2007 to Oct 31, 2009; separation agreement in Nov 2009 provided severance with conditions that could terminate or revoke payments.
- Finlay supervised Anne Cyron; Cyron faced UK discrimination claims; Cyron's UK suit prompted Beam to seek witness statements from Beam employees.
- Finlay objected to a witness statement as inaccurate and refused to sign; he communicated concerns only indirectly and later stated he would support the company but not perjure himself.
- Beam terminated all severance payments and demanded return of previously paid benefits on Apr. 14, 2010; Finlay had not informed Beam of opposition to Cyron’s discrimination before the severance ended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Finlay engaged in statutorily protected activity. | Finlay did oppose Cyron’s treatment by not signing the misleading statement. | Finlay did not communicate opposition to Beam regarding Cyron’s discrimination. | No; Finlay did not demonstrate protected activity known to Beam. |
| Whether Beam knew Finlay opposed Cyron's discrimination. | Finlay’s discussions showed concern about discriminatory elements. | No evidence Finlay conveyed opposition to Beam before severance ended. | No; knowledge cannot be inferred from nondirect statements. |
| Whether Finlay’s circumstantial evidence supports a reasonable inference of opposition. | Various discussions suggested concerns about discrimination. | Conversations were unrelated to Cyron and showed no explicit opposition to discrimination. | No; circumstantial evidence insufficient to show employer awareness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernier v. Morningstar, Inc., 495 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 2007) (employer awareness required for protected activity against discrimination)
- Miller v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2000) (proof requires direct or explicit opposition to discrimination)
- Sitar v. Indiana Dep't of Transp., 344 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2003) (no causal link if employer unaware of protected activity)
- Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074 (3d Cir. 1996) (protected activity can be broad but still must be communicated)
- Taylor v. ScottPolar Corp., 995 F. Supp. 1072 (D. Ariz. 1998) (distinguishable; limited applicability in Seventh Circuit)
- In re Airadigm Communications, Inc., 616 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard for retaliation claims)