Lau v. Abbott Laboratories, 2019 IL App (2d) 180456

Background

Lau, a Grade 17 financial analyst/supervisor at Abbott since 1999, received consistently positive reviews until supervisor Valerie Christophersen took over in 2013 and rated Lau "partially achieved" for 2013 and 2014.
Christophersen removed Lau’s direct reports in 2013, placed Lau on a performance improvement plan, then assigned substantially more work in 2014 (several additional business units and consolidated packages) while granting more flexibility and training opportunities to a younger male colleague, Lucas Bowden.
Lau appealed her ratings through Abbott’s Employee Relations (ER); ER adjusted another subordinate’s rating but upheld Lau’s rating after interviews and review. Lau complained internally that Christophersen was "biased" but did not expressly cite sex, race, national origin, or age.
Abbott terminated Lau in December 2014, citing missed deliverables, inaccuracies, and lack of leadership. Lau filed an administrative charge and then sued under the Illinois Human Rights Act alleging discrimination (sex, race, national origin, age) and retaliation.
The trial court granted Abbott summary judgment. On appeal, the court reviewed whether Lau made a prima facie discrimination case (including comparators and pretext) and whether her complaints qualified as protected activity for retaliation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lau made a prima facie discrimination case (similarly situated comparator)	Lau: Bowden and Docekal (male, younger) were similarly situated colleagues under the same supervisor performing substantially the same financial analysis; she was treated worse.	Abbott: Comparators had lower grades/positions and different expectations; not proper comparators.	Court: Denied summary judgment on this ground — factual dispute exists about whether comparators were similarly situated.
Whether Abbott’s stated nondiscriminatory reason (poor performance) was pretext	Lau: Prior long history of good reviews, inconsistent/contradictory evaluations by Christophersen, assignment of extra work after criticisms, differential treatment of men suggest pretext.	Abbott: Documented performance deficiencies support termination; contemporaneous critiques are legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.	Court: Reversed summary judgment as to discrimination — enough evidence of pretext for a jury to consider.
Whether plaintiff’s evidence must be evaluated only through McDonnell Douglas or "as a whole"	Lau: Evidence should be considered collectively (direct + circumstantial) and not be limited to McDonnell Douglas.	Abbott: McDonnell Douglas framework governs and plaintiff failed under it.	Court: McDonnell Douglas analysis sufficient here; because Lau survived that framework, court did not need to separately apply the "whole evidence" approach.
Whether Lau engaged in protected activity for retaliation claim	Lau: Her internal complaints that Christophersen was "biased" and treated Bowden more favorably constituted protected complaints of discrimination.	Abbott: Complaints were vague and did not put employer on notice of discrimination based on a protected characteristic.	Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Abbott on retaliation — Lau’s complaints were too vague to be protected activity.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer’s burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason; plaintiff’s opportunity to show pretext)
Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (evaluate circumstantial evidence as a whole; McDonnell Douglas is not exclusive)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (similarly situated analysis is flexible and fact-specific)
Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 131 Ill. 2d 172 (Illinois courts follow federal anti-discrimination precedent)
Skiba v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708 (elements of retaliation claim and requirement that complaint put employer on notice)