Laura A. Makowski v. Smithamundsen
662 F.3d 818
7th Cir.2011Background
- Makowski was Marketing Director at SmithAmundsen (Jan 2005–Feb 2008); she received annual raises and quarterly discretionary bonuses before her leave.
- She became pregnant in 2007, took FMLA leave around December 2007, with at-home work permitted before full leave.
- During a January 2008 Executive Committee retreat, Makowski's position was eliminated in a restructuring; Goddard was slated to lead Marketing going forward.
- On Feb 4, 2008, while on maternity leave, Makowski was terminated by Amundsen and DeLargy; the IT Director was also terminated that day.
- HR Director O'Gara told Makowski she was let go due to pregnancy and medical leave, referenced discrimination against pregnant employees, and suggested consulting counsel.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; on appeal the Seventh Circuit reversed in part, addressing O'Gara's statements and PDA/FMLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of O'Gara statements | O'Gara's statements are admissions under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). | Statements are hearsay and not attributable admissions. | Statements admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). |
| Pregnancy discrimination under PDA direct proof | O'Gara's statements provide direct evidence of discriminatory intent; timing and other evidence support discrimination. | Without admissible statements, no direct evidence; evidence insufficient. | PDA direct evidence shown; summary judgment reversed on pregnancy discrimination. |
| FMLA retaliation | O'Gara statements link protected activity to termination; causal connection exists. | No direct connection without statements; rationale insufficient. | Causal connection shown via admissions; summary judgment reversed on FMLA retaliation. |
| FMLA interference independent of retaliation | Go to whether denial of reinstatement was shown; O'Gara statements support. | No independent basis without statements. | Admission of statements requires reversal on interference claim; not independently dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simple v. Walgreen Co., 511 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2007) (subordinate's explanation can be admissible against employer concerning decisionmaking)
- Marra v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2007) ( Third Circuit on admission by supervisor related to management criteria)
- Griffin v. Sisters of St. Francis, Inc., 489 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2007) (PDA discrimination standards under Title VII)
- Goelzer v. Sheboygan Cnty., Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2010) (Goaling elements for FMLA interference claim)
- Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr., 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (FMLA retaliation and proof framework)
- Caskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 535 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2008) (direct method requirements for FMLA retaliation)
- Miller v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2000) (direct vs circumstantial proof in discrimination cases)
- Venturelli v. ARC Cmty. Servs., Inc., 350 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2003) (circumstantial evidence mosaic approach to discrimination)