Gary Vaughn v. Thomas Vilsack
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4750
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Vaughn worked for the Forest Service (USDA) as a GS-9 Career Development Specialist at Golconda, IL, and alleged retaliation under Title VII for protected activity.
- Two intersecting strands: (i) Vaughn’s prior EEO discrimination/retaliation complaints and a 2007 settlement; (ii) ongoing harassment claims by Lynn Towery and a related settlement restricting Vaughn’s conduct.
- After the Towery complaints, Vaughn was moved to a different shift (3:30 p.m.–midnight Wednesdays–Fridays; 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Sat–Sun) and denied overtime and an anticipated GS-11 rotation, purportedly to comply with Towery settlement terms.
- Towery’s 2005–2007 harassment allegations led to investigations, a state court order of protection against Vaughn, a 2007 settlement with monetary relief, and a 2007 letter changing Vaughn’s hours.
- In 2009 Vaughn filed suit for retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, finding Vaughn failed to show he met legitimate employment expectations; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vaughn proved a prima facie case of retaliation under the indirect method. | Vaughn contends he met the employer’s legitimate expectations despite alleged harassment. | Secretariat argues Vaughn’s harassment and disciplinary history showing improper conduct means he did not meet legitimate expectations. | No; Vaughn failed to show he met legitimate expectations, undermining prima facie case. |
| Whether the actions were pretextual and thus retaliatory despite failure on prima facie elements. | USDA’s explanations are pretextual for retaliation. | USDA’s actions were grounded in a legitimate response to harassment and settlement constraints. | Pretext arguments fail because the Secretary offered a legitimate reason and Vaughn did not show pretext. |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim. | Record supports prima facie case and pretext. | Record supports legitimate, non-pretextual reason and no prima facie case. | Affirmed summary judgment for the Secretary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002) (harassment and legitimate expectations standard in retaliation)
- Harper v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2012) (direct/indirect methods; four-element prima facie case)
- O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (pretext inquiry focused on the truth of the proffered reason)
- Davis v. Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wis., L.P., 651 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2011) (pre-termination investigation not alone conclusive of pretext)
- Schuster v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 327 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2003) (shifting explanations may indicate pretext)
- Luster v. Illinois Dept. of Corr., 652 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness of investigation in pretext analysis)
- Hall v. Bodine Electric Co., 276 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2002) (employer discipline to remedy harassment may be permissible)
- Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 1997) (employer actions to avoid liability may be prudent)