Gary Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society
911 F.3d 450
7th Cir.2018Background
- Gary Wrolstad worked at CUNA Mutual from 1984 until his position was eliminated in a 2009 restructuring; he was 52 at the time.
- He applied for several internal openings, including a pension participant support-specialist role; CUNA hired a 23‑year‑old external candidate (Logemann) for that job.
- Wrolstad accepted a severance agreement on December 30, 2009, releasing all claims in exchange for ~50 weeks of pay.
- In March 2010 he filed an age‑discrimination charge with the state commission; CUNA denied the charge and later sent a December 22, 2010 letter threatening to sue to enforce the severance waiver if he pursued an appeal.
- CUNA filed suit on January 28, 2011; Wrolstad filed a retaliation charge with the commission on November 21, 2011, later transferred to the EEOC and resulted in a federal suit.
- The district court granted summary judgment to CUNA: (1) no admissible evidence that age was the but‑for cause of the hiring decision; (2) the retaliation claim was time‑barred. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on the same grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wrolstad can show ADEA age discrimination for failure to hire him as support specialist | Age was a but‑for cause; hiring younger external candidate and alleged irregularities show age bias | Hiring decision based on lack of customer‑service experience, enthusiasm, and salary demand outside range; nondiscriminatory reasons | Affirmed: no evidence that age was the but‑for cause; summary judgment proper |
| Whether evidence/arguments raised for first time on appeal can revive discrimination claim | New evidence shows age animus (e.g., internal candidates ignored; notes praising youth) | Material not presented below is forfeited; district court cannot be faulted for not considering it | Affirmed: new arguments/evidence forfeited and also fail on the merits |
| When retaliation claim accrued for filing with EEOC/commission (limitations) | Clock should start when the lawsuit was filed (Jan 28, 2011), making charge timely | Clock started when CUNA sent unequivocal December 22, 2010 letter threatening to sue; charge filed >300 days later and is untimely | Affirmed: accrual at date of unequivocal threat (Dec 22, 2010); retaliation charge untimely |
| Whether CUNA’s later filing of suit was a separate, discrete retaliatory act restarting limitations under Morgan | Filing suit was a distinct retaliatory act that restarts the limitations period | The letter and subsequent suit were constituent parts of the same coercive action; suit was not a separate discrete act | Majority: not separate; dissent: would treat filing as a new discrete act and would allow timely claim if accrual began then |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (requirement that age be the "but‑for" cause under the ADEA)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (accrual occurs when employer gives unequivocal notice of adverse decision)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (each discrete discriminatory act starts a new filing clock)
- Draper v. Martin, 664 F.3d 1110 (Seventh Circuit discussion of Ricks accrual and ‘‘unequivocal notice’’ requirement)
- Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632 (unequivocal‑notice standard in accrual analysis)
- Gustovich v. AT&T Commc’ns, Inc., 972 F.2d 845 (Ricks application in Seventh Circuit)
- Sharp v. Aker Plant Servs. Group, 726 F.3d 789 (longevity used as proxy for age can indicate age bias when explicitly tied to age)