Moore v. Vital Products, Inc.
641 F.3d 253
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Vital hired Moore on Aug 16, 2004 as a driver technician; Moore alleged racial and sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliatory and IWCA retaliation; complaints about Cocking's office and décor followed by supervisor Matta's racist/sexist conduct; Moore was suspended Feb 16, 2005 and injured back, ceased working; Moore lost health insurance by Sept 2, 2005; Moore filed EEOC charge Dec 7, 2005; Moore suits Feb 16, 2007; district court granted summary judgment to Vital on all Title VII counts and IWCA, but denied sanctions; this appeal challenges those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore's hostile environment claim is timely against 300-day window | Moore asserts ongoing harassment after Feb 10, 2005 | No post-Feb 16, 2005 incidents shown | Grant of summary judgment affirmed for hostile environment |
| Whether Moore's discriminatory discharge claims were EEOC-charge barred | Discharge claims grow from same facts as charge | Not like or reasonably related to EEOC charge | Summary judgment affirmed; discharge claims not within scope |
| Whether Moore's retaliation claim is viable | Discharged in Feb 2005 for EEOC filing | Charge filed Dec 2005, after discharge | Qualified as not supported; retaliation claim not proven as timing |
| Whether Moore's IWCA retaliation claim survives | Evidence shows discharge or termination related to IWCA claim | Dispute on discharge timing; may be inactive status | Summary judgment reversed; issue for trial on discharge timing and motive |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation rule for hostile environment; 300-day lookback window)
- Chaudhry v. Nucor Steel-Indiana, 546 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2008) (timeliness of hostile environment claims under Title VII)
- Pruitt v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2006) (continuing violation consideration for time-bar questions)
- Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 538 F.2d 164 (7th Cir. 1976) (like-or-related analysis for EEOC charge scope)
- Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1994) (EEOC charge must describe conduct and involve same issues)
- Conner v. Ill. Dep't of Natural Res., 413 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2005) (scope of EEOC charge; precludes later, different claims)
- Rush v. McDonald's Corp., 966 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992) (EEOC charge scope; multiple discrimination instances)
- Sitar v. Ind. Dep't of Transp., 344 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard; scope of Title VII claims)