George Widmar v. Sun Chemical Corporation
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21893
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- George Widmar, born 1958, was a plant manager for Rycoline/Sun Chemical for ~16 years and was terminated on November 18, 2009; he was 51 at termination.
- Widmar alleges age discrimination (termination) and post-termination defamation; he also claims denial of contract severance paid to others.
- Company (Sun Chemical) assigned performance-related criticisms to Widmar under a ‘‘buck stops here’’ expectation that plant managers proactively solve quality issues and coordinate across lab, purchasing, and manufacturing.
- Much of the record reflects disputes about responsibility for product-quality incidents (lab testing materials, premixing procedures, filter purchases), with Widmar denying fault and the employer asserting he failed to meet performance expectations.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Sun Chemical; on appeal the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether Widmar produced admissible evidence creating a genuine issue on discrimination pretext, prima facie elements, severance discrimination, and defamation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence that age motivated termination | Widmar argues Roberts repeatedly blamed him for issues he did not cause, which shows discriminatory animus | Sun Chemical argues criticisms reflected management judgment about Widmar's performance, not age-based animus | No direct/circumstantial evidence of age discrimination; speculation insufficient to survive summary judgment |
| Whether Widmar established a McDonnell-Douglas prima facie case and showed pretext | Widmar contends he met expectations and younger employees were treated better; reassignment of duties shows discrimination | Sun Chemical says Widmar failed to meet legitimate expectations and post-termination task redistribution was mixed by age | Widmar failed to establish prima facie case and failed to show employer's nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual |
| Severance claim: denial of severance paid to other terminated employees | Widmar notes four other employees terminated for cause received severance, one under 40 | Sun Chemical disputes discriminatory denial; contends Widmar offers no comparative proof | Court finds plaintiff's cursory comparison insufficient to prove discrimination in severance pay |
| Defamation: post-termination statements about his conduct | Widmar claims a manager said he "made a change that screwed things up" (defamatory per se) | Sun Chemical notes different alleged language below and that the new asserted language was not litigated in district court | Defamation claim fails as not preserved on appeal and the quoted statement is not defamatory per se under Illinois law |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) (summary-judgment standards and limits on speculative affidavits)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment requires specific facts showing genuine issue for trial)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Muhammad v. Caterpillar, Inc., 767 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2014) (direct and circumstantial evidence standards in discrimination cases)
- Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (admissibility of self-serving affidavits at summary judgment)
- Silverman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 637 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2011) (employer’s subjective performance evaluation is not necessarily a pretext)
- Green v. Rogers, 917 N.E.2d 478 (Ill. 2009) (Illinois law on defamation and defamatory-per-se standard)