12 F.4th 708
7th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Mohammed Mahran, an Egyptian Muslim pharmacist, worked at Advocate and alleged denial of prayer breaks, disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment; he was placed on progressive discipline and ultimately terminated for failing to follow a corrective-action plan.
- Muslims at the pharmacy used scheduled breaks for daily prayers; Mahran contends supervisors later forbade using the 15-minute breaks for prayer and sometimes blocked his prayer breaks.
- Mahran complained internally about perceived religious and racial discrimination; HR removed one warning but left a lowered performance rating and a corrective-action plan.
- He sued under Title VII, § 1981, and the IHRA; the district court granted summary judgment to Advocate on all claims.
- On appeal Mahran (pro se) accepted an amicus brief arguing two issues: (1) whether failure to accommodate is actionable without an adverse employment action, and (2) whether the hostile-work-environment claim should be evaluated by the totality of the evidence. The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employer's failure to accommodate a religious practice is actionable absent an adverse employment decision | Failure-to-accommodate is independently actionable; adverse-action element not required | UPS requires plaintiff to show the unaccommodated practice was the basis of an adverse employment decision; no such showing here | Argument waived on appeal (not raised below); court declines to revisit UPS; summary judgment affirmed as no adverse-action evidence |
| Whether the hostile-work-environment claim must be judged using the totality of the evidence | Judge ignored disparate-treatment and other contextual evidence and should have considered all evidence holistically | Alleged comments were isolated/offhand, performance issues were legitimate, and alleged incidents weren’t severe or pervasive | Court: evidence should be considered holistically, but on full record no reasonable jury could find conduct severe or pervasive; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., 94 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996) (articulated elements for failure-to-accommodate claim relied on in district court)
- United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020) (courts must respect party presentation and not decide new issues sua sponte)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (advocates evaluating discrimination claims should assess all evidence together)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (standard for objectively/subjectively hostile work environment)
- Abrego v. Wilkie, 907 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2018) (elements for hostile-work-environment claims)
- Dandy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 388 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2004) (isolated or offhand comments insufficient to establish hostile-work-environment)