Kerrie Milligan-Grimstad v. Morgan Stanley, 877 F.3d 705

Background

Milligan worked at Morgan Stanley from 2001 and partnered with senior advisor John Mitchell until her termination in September 2012.
In summer 2012 Milligan processed a fraudulent wire transfer ($36,900) after emails and a confirming phone call; the client later reported identity theft.
Branch manager Mark Evans investigated Milligan’s handling of the transfer, reviewing emails, interviews, and Milligan’s prior discipline (a suspension and a letter of education).
Evans terminated Milligan shortly after concluding the fraud investigation; Milligan sued under Title VII, alleging sex-based termination and a hostile work environment.
Milligan alleged two periods of coworker misconduct: earlier (circa 2003–2009) with harassment and sexual advances, and later (beginning ~2011) with comments about a CNBC anchor and questions/request to plan her pregnancy; she did not report these incidents to management.
The district court granted summary judgment for Morgan Stanley, finding no admissible evidence that sex motivated the firing and that timely allegations did not amount to a hostile work environment; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Milligan presented evidence that sex motivated her termination	Milligan argues policy was misapplied, similarly situated males were treated better, and timing (shortly after Brendza attended a meeting) is suspicious	Morgan Stanley contends Evans fired Milligan for performance and mishandling the fraudulent transfer given her disciplinary record	Court held Milligan offered only speculation; no evidence sex influenced Evans, summary judgment affirmed
Whether Mitchell/Brendza created liability under a cat’s paw theory	Milligan contends Mitchell and Brendza harbored bias and caused Evans to fire her through influence	Morgan Stanley argues no evidence the subordinates’ alleged bias actually influenced Evans’ decision	Court held Milligan failed to show proximate cause or that Evans was a dupe; cat’s paw theory fails
Whether alleged coworker conduct created a hostile work environment	Milligan asserts decades-long harassment and later comments about pregnancy and a news anchor produced a hostile environment	Morgan Stanley argues most allegations are time-barred and the conduct within the limitations period was not severe or pervasive	Court held most conduct was outside the statutory period; the timely comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment
Whether pre-limitations incidents can be aggregated into a continuing hostile practice	Milligan argues earlier and later incidents form a single unlawful practice continuing into the statutory period	Morgan Stanley contends gaps and lack of specificity prevent aggregation	Court held Milligan’s testimony was too vague to bridge multi-year gaps; earlier incidents excluded except those reasonably connected to the later period

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard governs evidence viewed in plaintiff's favor)
Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (plaintiff must show protected characteristic caused discharge)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile work environment claims may include timely and related untimely acts if part of a single practice)
Blise v. Antaramian, 409 F.3d 861 (courts do not act as superpersonnel departments)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (comparator analysis requires similarly situated employees without distinguishing circumstances)
Johnson v. Koppers, Inc., 726 F.3d 910 (cat’s paw requirments: biased subordinate’s animus and proximate cause)
Scruggs v. Garst Seed Co., 587 F.3d 832 (elements and severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile work environment)