Malin v. Hospira, Inc.
762 F.3d 552
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Malin, an IT employee at Abbott and later Hospira after spin-off, rose to salary grade 18 by 2003 and remained there for years.
- In July 2003 Malin complained to Human Resources about sexual harassment by her indirect supervisor Shah; Carlin, Shah’s boss, actively resisted her complaint.
- Between 2003 and 2006 Malin sought promotions at Hospira but received none; Carlin remained the final promotions decision-maker in IT.
- Hospira’s 2006 IT reorganization left Malin effectively demoted, with duties of a higher-positioned role but no salary or managerial upgrade, and the intended new role reportedly remained unfilled.
- Malin requested FMLA leave on June 19, 2006; at issue is whether the reorganization had been decided before or during the June 14 meeting and whether promotion/ demotion decisions occurred before her leave.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on Malin’s Title VII retaliation claim and held there are triable issues for causation, remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII retaliation causation | Malin argues 2006 demotion/promotion denial was retaliatory for 2003 complaint. | Time gap weakens link; no causal connection shown. | Sufficient evidence creates triable causation; not barred by time gap. |
| FMLA retaliation causation | FMLA leave request connected to adverse actions in 2006 reorganization. | Promotion decisions finalized before/independent of FMLA leave. | Genuine dispute over timing; jury could find a causal link between FMLA leave and retaliation. |
| Use of outside evidence and summary judgment | Background hiring/promotion decisions outside 300-day window support pattern of retaliation. | Outside evidence is irrelevant to timely claim. | Morgan background evidence permitted; district court erred by ignoring this context. |
| Judicial approach to summary judgment practice | Evidence mischaracterization biased summary judgment. | Record properly analyzed; no bias. | Court criticizes improper cherry-picking; remands for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oest v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 240 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.2001) (no bright-line timing rule; context matters for retaliation timing)
- Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819 (7th Cir.2014) (no fixed time-bar; timing must be evaluated with circumstantial evidence)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S.2002) (prior acts outside the statute of limitations can be background evidence)
- Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir.2007) (circumstantial evidence supports retaliation claims under direct method)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir.2012) (circumstantial evidence permitted to support direct-method retaliation claims)