Marcus Morgan v. SVT, LLC
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16045
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Marcus Morgan, an African-American loss-prevention officer, worked part-time at SVT’s Ultra Foods while also working full-time at Home Depot; his supervisor was Raymond Gutierrez and Loss Prevention Director John Mowery oversaw Gutierrez.
- Morgan’s core duty was making theft stops; after solid early months his theft-stop numbers fell sharply in Sept–Oct 2007, and Gutierrez warned him informally several times and issued Corrective Action Notices on October 9, 2007.
- On October 7 Morgan recorded and reported dairy manager Frank Kajdawowski (white) taking a section of a newspaper; Kajdawowski was suspended one day; Morgan was not disciplined for the report but soon received formal warnings.
- Morgan was fired October 24, 2007 for "lack of Production/Theft Stops;" SVT cited low theft-stop performance and exhaustion from dual jobs as reasons; he was replaced.
- Morgan sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race discrimination (he did not pursue retaliation); the district court granted summary judgment for SVT and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan was fired because of race (Title VII/§1981) | Morgan contends he was terminated shortly after reporting a white manager, suggesting racial motive | SVT contends termination was for poor job performance (insufficient theft stops) and approved by supervisors based on comparisons and exhaustion | Court held insufficient evidence to show race was the reason; summary judgment for SVT affirmed |
| Comparator evidence requirement (McDonnell Douglas framework) | Morgan lacked but could have shown similarly situated non‑black employees treated better; points to Kajdawowski’s lighter discipline | SVT argues Kajdawowski was not a proper comparator (manager vs. officer; trivial infraction) and other non-black security officers existed elsewhere | Held Morgan failed to identify a proper similarly situated comparator; this dooms the indirect/burden‑shifting claim |
| Suspicious timing of discipline post‑reporting | Timing of warnings soon after the report was "suspicious" and suggests retaliatory/racial motive | SVT notes legitimate non‑suspicious reasons: prior warnings, documented poor theft‑stop performance, continued poor numbers after warnings | Held timing alone insufficient; reasonable non‑discriminatory explanations prevail |
| Inconsistent explanations and credibility attacks | Morgan points to HR director’s differing statements to EEOC and in deposition as evidence of pretext | SVT notes HR was peripheral, decisions came from loss prevention managers and Mowery; credibility inconsistency is minor | Held minor inconsistency by peripheral actor cannot defeat summary judgment; credibility attacks alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- McGowan v. Deere & Co., 581 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) (Section 1981 proof parallels Title VII)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements and burdens in employment discrimination cases)
- Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 653 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2011) (types of circumstantial evidence relevant to discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for indirect proof)
- Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2012) (articulation of the McDonnell Douglas elements)
- Troupe v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994) (mosaic metaphor for circumstantial evidence)
- Sylvester v. SOS Children’s Vills. Ill., Inc., 453 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2006) (clarifying limits of the ‘‘mosaic’’ concept)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard—no metaphysical doubt)
- Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., 636 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2011) (suspicious timing can be relevant but often insufficient alone)
- Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2008) (credibility attacks alone cannot defeat summary judgment)