Rajesh Tank v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13135
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Tank, a former T-Mobile VP born in India, was terminated after investigations into misconduct and leadership issues.
- There were two investigations (2008 and 2010) that culminated in the termination and a Report citing multiple policy violations.
- Kansas City incident involved racially insensitive remarks by a reporting employee; Tank advocated stronger action, HR recommended corrective action
- Mavers (HR) interviewed Tank's team; McAuliffe (HR) and Tank's relationship deteriorated, leading to tensions and subsequent investigations
- A 2010 inquiry followed anonymous and internal complaints alleging mismanagement, improper use of company resources, and favoritism; Ray decided to terminate Tank based on the Report
- Tank alleged pay discrimination, national-origin discrimination, and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for T-Mobile; Tank appeals
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under §1981 by termination | Tank claims race/origin bias by decision-maker | No direct evidence; circumstantial timing and pretext insufficient | No reasonable jury could conclude discrimination |
| Retaliation for opposing discrimination | Tank acted to oppose discrimination and harassment | Investigation timing and conduct do not show retaliation | No causal connection; no pretext established |
| Pay discrimination against non-Indian comparators | Tank's pay lower than comparators with similar roles | Comparators not valid; different qualifications/standards | No prima facie case; no valid comparators |
Key Cases Cited
- Schandelmeier-Bartels v. Chicago Park Dist., 634 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2011) (direct/indirect methods and evidence distinction)
- Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence proves discrimination)
- Nancify v. Ill. Dept. of Human Servs., 697 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2012) (direct vs indirect proof pathways under §1981)
- Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2014) (elements/methods of proof for Title VII and §1981 similar)
- Egonmwan v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 602 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct evidence timing/decision-maker analysis)
- Gordon v. United Airlines, Inc., 246 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2001) (pretext standard for discrimination claims)
- Huff v. UARCO, Inc., 122 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 1997) (circumstantial pretext evidence overlap with direct method)