Hisham Abdel-Ghaffar v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.
706 F. App'x 871
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Abdel‑Ghaffar, an Egyptian-born senior research engineer, was hired by Illinois Tool Works (ITW) in Feb 2011 to manage a wireless welding network project; his supervisor was Kathy Downie.
- Within months Downie criticized his client presentation, removed him as team leader, and placed him on a performance‑improvement plan (PIP) in August 2011 for technical competence, time management, and being argumentative.
- Downie documented ongoing problems (insubordination, missed deadlines, unapproved leave, alleged sleeping on the job, and disrespectful emails) and fired him Sept. 16, 2011, before the PIP target date.
- Abdel‑Ghaffar sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging national‑origin and religious (Muslim) discrimination; he pointed to three remarks/episodes (a comment about fasting, Downie’s reaction to his discussing Egypt, and her reaction to his pilgrimage) as direct evidence.
- The magistrate judge struck parts of Abdel‑Ghaffar’s Rule 56.1 response for noncompliance but nonetheless reviewed the record, granted summary judgment to ITW, and denied remote depositions; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did district court err by striking Abdel‑Ghaffar’s Rule 56.1 response? | Striking his filing prejudiced his ability to oppose summary judgment. | Court complied with local rules; in any event it reviewed the record. | No reversible error; appellate court reviewed admissible evidence for plaintiff anyway. |
| Do Downie’s comments and reactions constitute direct evidence of discrimination? | The fasting remark and her reactions to Egypt/pilgrimage show animus toward Egyptians/Muslims. | Comments were stray, ambiguous, social, and denied by Downie; insufficient to show discriminatory motive. | Remarks are stray/ambiguous and not objectively disparaging; insufficient to infer discrimination. |
| Did ITW’s stated reasons for firing (performance/insubordination) constitute pretext? | Abdel‑Ghaffar says performance was adequate and reasons are pretext to mask discrimination. | Downie identified multiple contemporaneous, nondiscriminatory reasons (presentation failure, insubordination, missed deadlines, emails). | Plaintiff failed to rebut all nondiscriminatory reasons; some misconduct is undisputed, so no genuine issue of pretext. |
| Was denial of remote depositions an abuse of discretion causing prejudice? | Denial prevented plaintiff from probing declarations and discovering evidence of lies/motivation. | Court has broad discovery discretion; written depositions were allowed and plaintiff offered no specific missing facts. | Denial unideal but not reversible; plaintiff did not show how remote depositions would produce evidence creating actual and substantial prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving discrimination when direct evidence is absent)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (explains limits of the "convincing mosaic" language and focuses inquiry on whether a reasonable factfinder could infer discrimination)
- Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2016) (stray remarks doctrine and standards for evidence comparing Title VII and § 1981)
- Ptasznik v. St. Joseph Hosp., 464 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2006) (ambiguous or social comments are insufficient to prove discriminatory animus)
- Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2002) (appellate review of discovery-denial requires a showing that denial caused actual and substantial prejudice)