Hicks v. FOREST PRESERVE DIST. OF COOK COUNTY, IL, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7790

Hicks, a black mechanic, worked at the Forest Preserve District of Cook County’s Central Garage for two years and received 28 disciplinary action forms for alleged performance issues.
Hicks participated in an internal discrimination investigation against his supervisor, Thompson, and later filed his own discrimination and retaliation complaints with the EEOC and Cook County Commission on Human Rights.
In 2008 Hicks was confronted with a choice: accept a demotion to a serviceman II (significant pay cut) or face further disciplinary action up to termination; Hicks accepted the demotion under protest.
Hicks was demoted to a lower-paying, non-mechanic role with duties like lawn care and snow removal, effectively altering his job responsibilities and compensation.
Evidence at trial included direct testimony that Thompson and other district officials sought to ‘get rid of’ Hicks for filing discrimination charges, and that the decision to demote was influenced by that retaliatory motive.
The district court denied summary judgment, the jury returned a verdict for Hicks awarding $30,000 and reinstatement to his former mechanic position, and the district court denied a Rule 50 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hicks proved a materially adverse action	Hicks suffered an involuntary demotion with wage cut	Demotion was voluntary and not materially adverse	Yes; demotion found materially adverse due to pay reduction and changed duties
Whether Hicks showed causation by retaliation	Direct evidence: cat's paw via Hruska testimony showing retaliatory motive from Thompson	Timing was too distant and demotion lacked retaliatory animus from decisionmakers	Yes; direct evidence and cat's paw theory supported causation
Whether the district court erred in jury instructions	Instruction sufficiently conveyed retaliation elements, even if not model Seventh Circuit form	Instruction was flawed by not naming the adverse action explicitly	No; instruction was correct overall and not reversible error
Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy	Reinstatement is the preferred remedy to make Hicks whole	Reinstatement would re-expose Hicks to a hostile supervisor	Yes; reinstatement affirmed as appropriate remedy

Hall v. Forest River, 536 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2008) (retaliation burden and adverse action standard)
David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2003) (opposition to unlawful practice as protected activity)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action standard in retaliation claims)
Tart v. Ill. Power Co., 366 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2004) (economic consequences as material adversity)
Simpson v. Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc., 196 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1999) (voluntary demotion not necessarily adverse action)
Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (causation with long gaps requires additional evidence)
Haywood v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 323 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2003) (timing evidentiary limits in causation)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (cat’s paw theory imputing supervisor's animus to employer)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (credibility and weight of direct evidence standard)
Bruso v. United Airlines, Inc., 239 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2001) (reinstatement considerations in Title VII cases)
Price v. Marshall Erdman & Assocs., 966 F.2d 320 (7th Cir. 1992) (mutual dislike not a sufficient reason to deny reinstatement)
Lalvani v. Cook Cnty., 269 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity evidence in retaliation)
Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (circumstantial and direct evidence in retaliation)