Joseph Reed v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16258
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Reed, an African-American Broker Liaison at Freedom Mortgage, was hired Nov 1, 2012 and reported to supervisors Bidstrup and Sperry (both white).
- The office operated 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.; management emailed on Jan 21, 2013 requiring prior approval for alternate schedules and restricting work-from-home.
- Reed received verbal and written warnings in January–April 2013 for repeated tardiness and absences; his time records showed multiple late arrivals and at least eight absences in a short period.
- In a 2013 reduction in force prompted by declining business, Reed and another African-American employee (Bates) were among the first Broker Liaisons terminated; Freedom Mortgage cited attendance/discipline records and lesser seniority as reasons.
- Reed sued under the Illinois Human Rights Act alleging race discrimination, denial of work-from-home and promotion, and hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for Freedom Mortgage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion/authentication of cell-phone videos | Videos show only Black employees required to start at 8 a.m.; should be admitted despite lack of formal authentication | Videos lack dates/timestamps, show limited view, and were untimely included in appendix | Videos properly excluded for lack of authentication and untimely submission; no abuse of discretion |
| Negative inference from non-production of attendance records | Failure to produce formal attendance/personnel records permits an adverse inference that withheld records would favor Reed | Requests were overbroad, objections were raised, and plaintiff never moved to compel; no evidence of bad-faith destruction | No negative inference; Seventh Circuit requires evidence of bad-faith destruction for such inference, not mere discovery dispute |
| Comparative evidence / summary judgment under McDonnell Douglas | Reed identified four white comparators who allegedly were treated better and not disciplined similarly | Defendant showed Reed had documented, repeated violations; plaintiff offered no discovery evidence tying comparators to similar attendance/discipline records | Summary judgment affirmed: Reed failed to show similarly situated non-Black employees were treated more favorably; insufficient comparator evidence |
| Hostile work environment claim | Alleged differential application of attendance rules, disproportionate monitoring/discipline, and termination created a hostile environment | Same evidentiary failings as discrimination claim—no proof of disparate treatment versus similarly situated non-Black employees | Claim fails for same reasons as discrimination claim; no adequate evidence of race-based disparate application |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in plaintiff's favor)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (ultimate question is whether a reasonable factfinder could infer discriminatory motive)
- Perez v. Thorntons, Inc., 731 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for determining whether employees are similarly situated)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (common-sense examination of comparators; factfinder role)
- Faas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2008) (adverse inference may arise when a party destroys documents in bad faith)
- Griffin v. Bell, 694 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2012) (district court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Volling v. Kurtz Paramedic Servs., Inc., 840 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2016) (Illinois Human Rights Act claims analyzed under federal Title VII framework)
- Yahnke v. Kane County, Ill., 823 F.3d 1066 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standards and review approach)