Kenneth Harper v. C.R. England, Inc
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11598
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Harper, African-American, worked as a road instructor for C.R. England from July 2005 until his August 3, 2007 termination.
- In March 2007, Harper allegedly heard a racial slur from a coworker; Metzler allegedly did not hear it but warned the team.
- Harper reported the incident to human resources in April 2007 and again in July 2007; director Kelsey discussed the matter with him.
- Metzler, Harper's supervisor, issued three written warnings to Harper in June 2007 and placed him on probation for attendance.
- Harper was terminated August 3, 2007 for excessive absences, with the termination approved after consultations involving Kelsey and Johansen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harper proved retaliation under the direct method. | Harper relies on circumstantial evidence and timing. | No direct evidence; timing insufficient. | Harper failed to show a triable causal link. |
| Whether Harper proves retaliation under the indirect method. | Harper had protected activity, adverse action, and comparators. | No prima facie case; no proper comparators or evidence of performance issues. | No prima facie case under indirect method. |
| Whether the proffered reasons for termination were pretextual. | Evidence suggests pretext (timing, holidays treated unfairly). | Reason was excessive absences; not pretextual. | Harper failed to show pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. City of Indianapolis Pub. Utils. Div., 281 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2002) (timing alone rarely supports retaliation claim)
- Sauzek v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 202 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2000) (suspicious timing requires more evidence to show causation)
- Magyar v. Saint Joseph Reg'l Med. Ctr., 544 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2008) (timing plus other evidence can support inference of retaliation)
- Haywood v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 323 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2003) (retaliation standards apply to direct/indirect methods)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (S. Ct. 2006) (broad view of materially adverse action under Title VII)
- O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (pretext standard for retaliation cases)
- Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (pretext analysis in discrimination context)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussion of unified approach to discrimination/retaliation)