Moultrie Ex Rel. Estate of Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum International, LLC
200 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3525
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Moultrie, a forklift operator at Penn Aluminum, was demoted due to alleged performance problems.
- He claims racial discrimination and retaliation, and that Penn violated the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Starting Sept. 2, 2008, Moultrie faced a series of write-ups and counseling for performance lapses after returning to forklift work.
- The company issued a Step 3 grievance denial on May 21, 2009; no arbitration was filed within the CBA’s deadline.
- Moultrie filed state and federal charges in 2009 and 2011 respectively; the district court granted Penn summary judgment.
- The court held the breach claim time-barred and concluded the discrimination and retaliation claims lacked evidence to defeat summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the breach-of-CBA claim time-barred? | Moultrie argues tolling circumstances apply to avoid the six-month limit. | Penn asserts the six-month statute applies and tolling is not warranted. | No equitable tolling; claim barred by statute of limitations. |
| Did Moultrie establish a prima facie case of discrimination? | Moultrie met the protected class and experienced adverse action; similarly situated comparators exist. | Penn argues he did not meet expectations and lacks proper comparators. | Denied; no prima facie case shown. |
| Was there a similarly situated comparator to support discrimination claim? | Billups and others outside protected class were treated more favorably. | Comparators are not sufficiently similar or were not shown in record. | Insufficient evidence of proper comparators. |
| Is there evidence of retaliation under either direct or indirect method? | Protected activity occurred when he criticized a coworker assignment; demotion followed. | Timing is suspicious but not causally connected; no protected activity proven or linked to demotion. | Summary judgment for Penn; no retaliation proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (accrual and tolling in NLRA-based claims)
- Chapple v. Nat'l Starch & Chem. Co. & Oil, 178 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 1999) (equitable tolling standards for contract claims)
- Smiley v. Columbia Coll. Chi., 714 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2013) (elements of scientific discrimination proof in indirect method)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
- Sauzek v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 202 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2000) (timing and causation in retaliation cases)
- Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2014) (retaliation proof under indirect method requires protected activity and causation)