Norma Perez v. Thorntons, Incorporated
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19979
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Perez, a Hispanic female store manager for Thorntons, was terminated on Nov 10, 2009 for alleged failure to control cash/inventory after she purchased discounted candy bars she believed Koziol had permitted.
- Koziol, Perez’s non-Hispanic male supervisor, had previously engaged in a similar act of solvent/cover-up regarding missing inventory and was only warned, not fired.
- Koziol had made sexist and anti-Hispanic remarks; Perez reported some of these comments to management years earlier.
- Surveillance video showed Perez selling discounted candy bars to herself with a price override; she claimed Koziol’s permission, while Thorntons later cited write-off policy and loss control as reasons for her firing.
- Darlington (regional manager) and Roberts (HR) were involved in Perez’s termination; Picone (regional VP) and Stackhouse (HR exec) were aware, with some evidence of involvement by Picone in prior discipline of Koziol.
- The court reverses the district court’s summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding comparators, pretext, and discriminatory motivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie showing under indirect method | Perez identifies Koziol as a similarly situated comparator | Koziol’s conduct was not sufficiently comparable | Genuine issue of material fact on comparability; prima facie shown |
| Pretext for termination | Evidence suggests Thorntons lied about reasons; Koziol’s prior bias shows discriminatory motive | Stated reason was truthful and based on loss/inventory control | Pretext proven; jury could infer discrimination |
| Direct method circumstantial proof | Circumstantial mosaic shows discriminatory motive | Insufficient contemporaneous discriminatory evidence linking remarks to decision | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit jury to infer discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Naficy v. Illinois Dep’t of Human Servs., 697 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2012) (outlines indirect/disparate treatment framework for discrimination claims)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (collapse of direct/indirect tests; test for discrimination causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2003) (similar comparator analysis in disciplinary context)
- Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Inc., 470 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2006) (limits on reliance on stray remarks in proving pretext)