Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3421

Loudermilk worked at Best Pallet Company disassembling pallets and stacking wood on a tear-down machine with multiple workers.
He alleges race-based staffing: two+ Hispanic workers on one side, Loudermilk (Black) on the other, causing under-supply of help and criticism for falling boards.
Loudermilk complained verbally and in writing about discrimination and asked for equal treatment; management allegedly did nothing and faced racial slurs from Hispanic workers.
In April 2006 he began EEOC complaints and took photographs of the work area to illustrate the setup and need for two stackers per side.
Supervisor Lyons told him to stop taking pictures; Loudermilk handed a written note the next day and was fired on the spot.
Loudermilk filed an EEOC charge; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the case then proceeded on a Title VII retaliation claim under direct proof.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether timing supports causation for retaliation	Loudermilk's discharge closely followed his protected activity.	No direct link shown; timing alone is insufficient.	Reasonable inference of causation possible; timing may support retaliation.
Whether defendant's proffered reasons were pretextual	Photography policy and other explanations are pretextual and racial bias driven.	Discharge based on policy violation or other legitimate reasons.	Pretext supported; dubious policy rationale bolsters inference of discrimination.
Whether Loudermilk reasonably opposed an unlawful employment practice	Complaints about racial favoritism and hostile conditions were protected activity.	Complaints were vague and did not amount to protected opposition.	Protests deemed protected; reasonable belief of unlawful discrimination established.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment requires view of facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext evidence may support an inference of discrimination)
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework; strict standards for proving discrimination after prima facie case)
Pollard v. Rea Magnet Wire Co., 824 F.2d 557 (7th Cir. 1987) (employer need not show 'just cause' for termination; pretext possible)
Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs, 452 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden-shifting framework for Title VII retaliation cases)
Casna v. Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity can support inference of causation)
Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (very close temporal proximity can establish causation)
Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2004) (contextual evaluation of causation in discrimination cases)
McClendon v. Indiana Sugars, Inc., 108 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 1997) (causation and timing considerations in Title VII cases)
Fine v. Ryan Int’l Airlines, 305 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of belief about illegality in retaliation claims)