Lewis v. Wilkie
909 F.3d 858
7th Cir.2018Background
- Jerry Lewis, a VA cook, was reinstated in Dec. 2013 after an ALJ found the Agency retaliated in his 2009 termination; reinstatement included a six-month training/mentor program and weekly mentor meetings.
- After reinstatement Lewis reported eleven incidents (administrative errors, supervisor actions by Schmidt and Wroblewski, and a 60-day performance review) which he alleged were retaliation for his 2009 EEO activity.
- Administrative incidents: temporary lack of locker (resolved same day or next), a delayed paycheck (paid in Feb. 2014), and an underpaid rate (resolved by March 2014).
- Schmidt incidents: counseling about freezer organization, schedule alteration then threatened reprimand for leaving early (no discipline), instruction to sign out for mentor meetings, questioning about restroom whereabouts, and requiring a witness for a meeting denying administrative leave.
- Wroblewski incidents: alleged instruction to coworkers to monitor Lewis (disputed by coworker testimony) and instructing a coworker (Borgwardt) to collect negative information (some testimony supported note-taking but no discipline resulted).
- Procedural posture: Lewis filed a new EEO complaint, lost before the ALJ, sued under Title VII in district court; the district court granted summary judgment to the Agency, holding none of the incidents were materially adverse; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged actions were "materially adverse" under Title VII retaliation | Lewis: the eleven incidents (administrative failures, supervisor actions, 60‑day review) were retaliatory and would dissuade a reasonable employee from protected activity | Agency: incidents were petty, isolated, resolved, caused at most stress, and did not produce material injury or affect terms/conditions | Court: None of the incidents were materially adverse; they were minor, resolved, or produced no tangible harm |
| Whether there is causation between protected activity and alleged acts | Lewis: temporal and contextual evidence supports retaliatory motive | Agency: lacked causal connection for most incidents; legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons given | Court: District court correctly found no causal link for most incidents (analysis of causation unnecessary after adverse‑action ruling) |
| Whether similarly situated comparators or pretext exist (McDonnell Douglas framework) | Lewis: district court improperly required comparator under direct method | Agency: even under indirect method, no comparator or evidence of pretext | Court: Court need not reach these because no materially adverse action; district court appropriately analyzed evidence holistically per Ortiz |
| Whether requiring a witness for meeting was adverse or causal | Lewis: witness requirement was retaliatory and singled him out | Agency/Schmidt: witness requirement was to protect supervisor given past false accusations | Held: Court found a causal connection but no materially adverse action from the witness requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (Title VII retaliation requires materially adverse action likely to dissuade reasonable employee)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (evidence should be evaluated as a whole; avoid rigid ‘‘direct’’ vs ‘‘indirect’’ piles)
- Poullard v. McDonald, 829 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2016) (threats of unspecified discipline causing only stress are not materially adverse)
- Ferrill v. Oak Creek‑Franklin Joint Sch. Dist., 860 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2017) (McDonnell Douglas framework remains a tool for analyzing circumstantial evidence)
- Sitar v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp., 344 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2003) (elements for retaliation prima facie case; similarly‑situated comparator principle)
- Hottenroth v. Village of Slinger, 388 F.3d 1015 (7th Cir. 2004) (unfulfilled threats without material harm are not adverse in retaliation context)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (formal EEOC charges are prototypical protected activity)