Henry Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Incorporat
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15284
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ortiz, a Hispanic freight broker at Werner Enterprises for seven years, was fired in 2012 after managers claimed he falsified load records; Ortiz alleges he was terminated because of his Mexican ethnicity and brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Illinois Human Rights Act.
- Werner used a proprietary system to record loads and assigned regional responsibility to brokers in 2012; Ortiz was assigned the West region, which experienced unprofitable loads during a peak-season rate spike.
- Assistant manager Krikava booked several unprofitable loads in Ortiz’s name (sometimes swapping names after pickup) without notifying Ortiz; Ortiz later edited records to lower carrier rates or remove his name on some loads and then went on vacation; on return, branch manager Lass fired him for falsifying records.
- Ortiz presents testimony that (1) managers and brokers routinely warned before booking losses in another’s name, (2) brokers and managers practiced removing names from losing loads (“spacing”), and (3) Lass and Krikava used frequent ethnic slurs toward Ortiz; Werner disputes these factual claims and contends brokers lacked authority to alter records.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Werner using the court’s direct/indirect evidence framework and requiring a "convincing mosaic" of discrimination; this appeal challenges that analytical framework and the summary judgment ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reasonable juror could find Ortiz was discharged because of ethnicity | Ortiz: managers targeted him with losses and tolerated behavior by him that others did without firing; ethnic slurs show discriminatory animus | Werner: Ortiz falsified records; practice of removing names not authorized; slurs unrelated to termination and insufficient to show causation | Reversed summary judgment; evidence viewed as whole could permit a jury to find discriminatory discharge; trial required |
| Proper analytical standard for employment discrimination evidence | Ortiz: all evidence should be considered together to show causation | Werner: district court applied direct/indirect methods and demanded a "convincing mosaic" | Court rejects treating "direct" vs "indirect" as separate legal tests and overrules use of "convincing mosaic" as a legal requirement |
| Admissibility/value of Ortiz’s affidavit recounting Lass’s statements at firing meeting | Ortiz: affidavit falls under opposing-party admissions and is not hearsay | Werner: challenged as hearsay | Court observed it likely was non-hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) but remanded so witnesses can testify at trial |
| Effect of after-acquired evidence (sexually explicit emails) on liability/damages | Ortiz: such emails discovered after firing cannot justify the earlier discharge | Werner: emails show separate policy violations | Court: after-acquired evidence cannot retroactively justify discharge; it may limit damages per McKennon and is for the jury to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Achor v. Riverside Golf Club, 117 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 1997) (directs treating all evidence together to determine causation in discrimination claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for proving discrimination)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (after-acquired evidence may limit relief but cannot justify an earlier unlawful discharge)
- Sylvester v. SOS Children’s Villages Illinois, Inc., 453 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2006) (rejects rigid direct/indirect separation and supports unified evidence analysis)
- Andrews v. CBOCS West, Inc., 743 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 2014) (earlier panel applying direct/indirect framework, overruled to extent it mandates separate treatment)