Julia Hutt v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Incorp
757 F.3d 687
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Julia Hutt, a sales representative at Solvay from 2001, received recurring criticisms for administrative issues and punctuality; new managers Brian Lozen and Jeff Westfall supervised her from 2008–2011.
- In March 2008 Hutt requested HR help; her husband phoned HR about her stress; shortly after Hutt was placed on Informal Warning and a PIP requiring completion of administrative tasks.
- At the April 2008 national sales meeting, multiple incidents were reported (Lozen grabbing Hutt, alleged harassment by other employees, and complaints by colleagues about Hutt’s conduct); Solvay placed Hutt on Formal and then Final Warning status, which made her ineligible for bonuses.
- Hutt took medical leave in 2008; warnings persisted and affected bonus eligibility for several quarters. Craig King, a 58‑year‑old colleague, received similar warnings and was later terminated.
- Hutt filed an EEOC charge in February 2009 alleging age discrimination and retaliation; she later sued under the ADEA and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. The district court granted summary judgment for Solvay; Hutt appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Hutt failed to produce direct or circumstantial evidence of age discrimination, failed to show causation for retaliation, and waived any independent bad‑faith theory under the Wage Payment Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination under ADEA (direct method) | Hutt: treatment and warnings (she and King were oldest employees disciplined) show age bias; Lozen asked for birthdates | Solvay: no direct statements or evidence linking discipline to age; actions were performance‑related | Affirmed — Hutt produced neither direct nor convincing circumstantial evidence; speculation insufficient |
| Age discrimination under ADEA (indirect method) | Hutt: similarly situated comparators exist (younger reps treated better) | Solvay: Hutt failed to identify proper comparators or eliminate other explanations | Affirmed — Hutt waived extended argument and in any event failed to show similarly situated comparators |
| Retaliation (AE D A) after EEOC charge (direct method) | Hutt: EEOC filing (Feb 2009) is protected; adverse actions continued/extended after filing | Solvay: warnings predated EEOC filing; temporal proximity alone insufficient; no causal link shown | Affirmed — no causal connection; warnings largely predated charge and temporal proximity insufficient |
| Indiana Wage Payment Act (bad‑faith withholding of bonuses) | Hutt: bonuses are wages; placing her on warning in bad faith deprived her of earned wages independent of discrimination/retaliation claims | Solvay: warnings made her ineligible under policy; Hutt never developed an independent bad‑faith theory below | Affirmed — Hutt waived any independent bad‑faith theory; absent discrimination/retaliation claims, Wage Act claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. CBOSCS West, Inc., 743 F.3d 230 (7th Cir.) (summary‑judgment evidence construed in plaintiff's favor)
- Bass v. Joliet Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 86, 746 F.3d 835 (7th Cir.) (discussion of direct vs. indirect proof methods)
- Good v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.) (speculation is insufficient to survive summary judgment)
- Chaib v. Indiana, 744 F.3d 974 (7th Cir.) (no inference of discrimination without similarly situated comparators)
- Smith v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Co., 674 F.3d 655 (7th Cir.) (elements of ADEA retaliation claim)
- Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.) (causation requirement for retaliation at summary judgment)
- Tomanovich v. City of Indianapolis, 457 F.3d 656 (7th Cir.) (temporal proximity rarely suffices to establish causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (framework for indirect method of proof)
- Frey Corp. v. City of Peoria, Ill., 735 F.3d 505 (7th Cir.) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)