Jennifer Hitchcock v. Angel Corps Incorporated
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11761
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Angel Corps fired Hitchcock for pregnancy-related reasons after a sequence of workplace events surrounding a 100-year-old client’s death.
- Hitchcock was three months pregnant when a supervisor began increasing her workload and assigning tasks previously handled by others.
- There were multiple shifting explanations for the firing, including a “full admission on an expired client,” a deficient assessment, and supposed health-and-safety concerns.
- Hitchcock reported that the supervisor asked if she was quitting due to pregnancy and suggested an abortion to a co-worker, implying anti-pregnancy animus.
- The decision to fire came after Hitchcock communicated the pregnancy and after a controversial April 5 incident; the court evaluated whether pretext and discriminatory motive existed.
- The district court granted summary judgment; the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Angel Corps’ explanations for firing Hitchcock were pretextual | Hitchcock argues shifting, implausible reasons show pretext and discriminatory motive | Angel Corps contends reasons were legitimate and consistent | Yes; genuine issues of material fact on pretext exist |
| Whether Hitchcock’s pregnancy was the real reason for discharge | Pregnancy driven animus can be inferred from comments and treatment changes | Discharge based on conduct during the April 5 incident, not pregnancy | Yes; jury could conclude firing stemmed from pregnancy |
Key Cases Cited
- Millbrook v. IBP, Inc., 280 F.3d 1169 (7th Cir. 2002) (pretext shown by inconsistent explanations)
- Atanus v. Perry, 520 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2008) (pretext evidence supports discrimination claim)
- Rudin v. Lincoln Land Cmty. College, 420 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2005) (shifting explanations support pretext finding)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (direct method simplification; screening for discriminatory causation)
- Van Antwerp v. City of Peoria, Ill., 627 F.3d 295 (7th Cir. 2010) (timing can support inference of causation)
- Stalter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 195 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 1999) (consistency in explanations matters for credibility)
- Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., LLC, 636 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2011) (pretext evidenced by implausible explanations)
- Peirick v. Indiana Univ.-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis Athletics Dep’t, 510 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2007) (post hoc explanations can create fact issues)
- Sheehan v. Donlen Corp., 173 F.3d 1039 (7th Cir. 1999) (pregnancy discrimination as part of gender discrimination)
- Ilhardt v. Sara Lee Corp., 118 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir. 1997) (statements doubting return after pregnancy may be circumstantial evidence)