Henry Beverly v. Abbott Laboratories
107f4th737
| 7th Cir. | 2024Background
- Henry Beverly, a Black man, was employed as a senior financial analyst at Abbott Laboratories, supervised by Victoria Luo following a 2012 reorganization.
- Abbott restructured in 2013, reducing Beverly’s job duties substantially and leaving him with limited meaningful work.
- In March 2015, Beverly was granted a personal leave of absence, during which he obtained full-time employment with Cook County without informing Abbott, in violation of company policy.
- Beverly’s leave was extended twice, but Abbott filled his position, and upon his third extension request, Beverly was terminated.
- Beverly sued Abbott and Luo for racial discrimination/retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Illinois Human Rights Act) and for defamation (based on a statement to Abbott Global Security that he had a “history of lying”).
- The district court granted summary judgment on some claims, denied others, and the jury found for Abbott on all remaining claims; Beverly appealed various pretrial, trial, and post-trial decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive discharge due to duty reduction | Job duties so reduced it amounted to constructive discharge | Reduction didn’t rise to constructive discharge; no intent to terminate | No constructive discharge; reduction ≠ constructive discharge |
| Racial discrimination in termination | Terminated based on race; Abbott’s reasons were pretextual | Termination followed company policy & leave violations; no racial animus | Abbott’s reasons not pretextual; no discrimination |
| Defamation ("history of lying" statement) | Statement was defamatory in context of employment | Statement was a non-actionable opinion under Illinois law | Statement was non-actionable opinion; no defamation |
| Trial rulings (impeachment, evidence, closing argument) | Court erred in handling impeachment, exclusion of evidence, and allowing prejudicial arguments | District court's actions were within discretion and instructions cured any prejudice | No abuse of discretion; motion for new trial denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard in employment discrimination—reasonable factfinder test)
- Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc., 621 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard for constructive discharge)
- Quinn v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 658 N.E.2d 1225 (Ill. App. 1995) (general statements like "liar" as opinions, not actionable for defamation)
- Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo’s Designer Direct, Inc., 227 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 2008) (court decides as matter of law if statement is opinion or fact)
- Monroe v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp., 871 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017) (pretext requires more than faulty reasoning; must be a lie)