Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23801
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Montgomery, an African-American employee and TWU member, began probation as a ground support equipment mechanic in the Auto Shop at O’Hare in Dec 2006.
- He failed a tool inspection and a qualification test during his five-month probation, after which he returned to Fleet Service Clerk.
- Montgomery alleged coworkers harassed him due to race; he claimed supervisors were not responsible for the harassment.
- Montgomery complained in late Feb/Mar 2007; supervisor Schaefer asserted the CBA required testing and strict adherence under new management.
- Montgomery filed an EEOC charge Oct 2007 and suit alleging hostile environment (Counts I–II) and discriminatory demotion (Counts III–IV); the district court granted summary judgment for American.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery proved a hostile work environment under § 1981/Title VII | Montgomery relies on coworker harassment and failure to prevent it, seeking employer liability. | No supervisor liability or notice; harassment by coworkers not imputable to American. | Summary judgment for American on hostile environment; no supervisor liability or constructive notice shown. |
| Whether American is liable for hostile environment under negligence theory | American failed to enforce anti-harassment policy and prevent harm. | Policy existed; Montgomery failed to report properly; constructive notice not shown. | No liability; once Montgomery failed to report properly, employer not liable. |
| Whether Montgomery proved racial discrimination through direct method | Circumstantial evidence shows discriminatory intent (alone in Auto Shop, tests singled out). | Circumstantial evidence insufficient to show discriminatory motive. | No triable issue; direct method fails. |
| Whether Montgomery proved racial discrimination through indirect method (prima facie case) | He was protected, performing satisfactorily, suffered adverse action, and others outside protected class were treated better. | No similarly situated comparators; test administration not shown as discriminatory; no pretext. | No prima facie case; district court correct to grant summary judgment. |
| Whether American’s stated reasons for demotion were pretextual under indirect method | Demotion not justified by testing results; disparate treatment alleged. | Demotion due to failure of tool inspection and qualification test per CBA. | No pretext shown; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr., 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010) (hostile environment elements and employer liability framework)
- Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2008) (employer liability for coworker harassment; notice and corrective action)
- Rhodes v. Ill. Dep't of Transp., 359 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2004) (constructive notice and notice principles in harassment claims)
- Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Ill., Inc., 163 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1998) (notice and reporting requirements for harassment claims)
- Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't, 578 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence in direct discrimination cases)
- Sattar v. Motorola, Inc., 138 F.3d 1164 (7th Cir. 1998) (subjective criteria and potential discrimination in evaluations)
- Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2004) (disparate treatment in discrimination analysis)
- Severn v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 1997) (summary judgment standard and material facts)