Owens v. Old Wisconsin Sausage Co., 870 F.3d 662

Owens, hired June 2011 as Old Wisconsin’s HR manager (only female manager), was terminated April 13, 2012; district court granted summary judgment for employer and Owens appealed.
Owens had a long-term relationship with a subordinate, Kobussen, whom she helped hire and later supervised; she denied the relationship when questioned by management.
Coworkers complained about a potential conflict of interest and Kobussen’s performance; company had informal practice of questioning supervisors in relationships with subordinates and taking steps to avoid conflicts.
Management documented performance and professionalism concerns and produced a termination memo listing multiple grounds (integrity, judgment, approachability); Owens contends actual reason was her refusal to answer questions about the relationship.
Owens also reported alleged FLSA overtime-pay violations in July and October 2011 and later claimed her termination was retaliatory for those reports and for opposing supposed sexual-harassment questioning.
The district court found insufficient evidence that sex or protected activity caused the termination; judicial estoppel was applied to Owens’ inconsistent statements about whether she lived with Kobussen, and that determination was not challenged on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sex discrimination (Title VII) — Was termination motivated by Owens’ sex?	Owens: questioned about relationship because she was female; termination followed refusal to answer.	Old Wisconsin: termination for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons (performance, integrity, professionalism); male supervisors similarly questioned about subordinate relationships.	Court: No reasonable factfinder could conclude sex caused termination; summary judgment for employer affirmed.
Retaliation (Title VII) — Was Owens terminated for opposing sexual harassment?	Owens: she called the questioning "borderline sexual harassment" and was fired in retaliation.	Employer: questioning was a legitimate inquiry into conflict of interest and performance complaints; Owens’ belief was not objectively reasonable.	Court: Owens lacked a good-faith, reasonable belief that questioning was unlawful harassment; no Title VII retaliation.
Retaliation (FLSA) — Was termination retaliation for reporting FLSA violations?	Owens: she reported alleged overtime violations and was fired in retaliation.	Employer: FLSA complaints were temporally remote, Thiel made same complaint and wasn’t fired, and termination reasons relate to conduct/communication, not reports.	Court: No causal link shown; summary judgment for employer affirmed.

Ortiz v. Werner Enter., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment standard: whether evidence permits reasonable factfinder to conclude protected trait caused adverse action)
Nicholson v. City of Peoria, Ill., 860 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2017) (evidence evaluation in discrimination claims)
David v. Bd. of Trustees of Comty. Coll. Dist. No. 508, 846 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 2017) (McDonnell Douglas remains useful as a framework for circumstantial evidence)
Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint Sch. Dist., 860 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2017) (retaliation proof and protected activity standards)
Kasten v. St. Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 703 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2012) (causation requirement for FLSA retaliation claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)