Ramon v. Illinois Gastroenterology Group, LLC.
1:19-cv-01522
N.D. Ill.Mar 22, 2021Background
- Ramon was a histology technician (hired 2015 at age 48) who also worked a full-time day job; he worked nights at IGG and processed tissue specimens for IGG and an outside lab owned by IGG’s medical director.
- In January 2018 Ramon committed two serious lab errors (misplacing patient tissue on wrong slides); corrective-action notices were prepared and he refused to return the forms.
- Ramon requested and took intermittent FMLA leave (for surgery and to care for his father); he also raised workplace-safety concerns and emailed that he filed an OSHA complaint on March 28, 2018.
- IGG changed the Lab’s hours in late March 2018, moving Ramon to daytime start times; Ramon repeatedly refused or declined to provide information about his ability to work the new schedule given his other job and childcare obligations.
- IGG terminated Ramon on April 6, 2018, citing primarily his refusal to cooperate about the new schedule and secondarily his lab errors, failure to return corrective-action forms, schedule deviations, refusal to do M Lab work, and inappropriate emails; OSHA’s subsequent inspection found no violations.
- Ramon sued for ADEA age discrimination, FMLA retaliation, Illinois common-law retaliatory discharge, and retaliation under the Illinois Whistleblower Act; Title VII claims were dismissed. The court granted IGG summary judgment on all remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA age discrimination | Lauing made age-related comments; timing supports inference that age motivated termination | Termination based on nondiscriminatory reasons (refusal to provide schedule info, serious lab errors, insubordination, schedule absences, emails) and decisionmakers were older or similar age | Summary judgment for IGG; plaintiff failed to show but-for causation or pretext |
| FMLA retaliation | Temporal proximity between Ramon’s FMLA leave and termination shows retaliation | Intervening significant events (refusal to cooperate about schedule, misconduct) and legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for firing | Summary judgment for IGG; timing insufficient and reasons not shown to be pretext |
| Illinois common-law retaliatory discharge | Termination retaliated against OSHA complaint about lab safety | Safety concerns were resolved; OSHA found no violations; termination was for other nondiscriminatory reasons | Summary judgment for IGG; no causal link shown |
| Illinois Whistleblower Act (IWA) | Termination was retaliation for disclosure to OSHA | Same defenses as above; causation standard mirrors retaliatory discharge law | Summary judgment for IGG; claim fails for lack of causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Skiba v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2018) (describing ADEA proof paths and McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (court must assess whether evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to find protected status caused the adverse action)
- Leitgen v. Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc., 630 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2011) (suspicious timing alone rarely survives summary judgment)
- Kahn v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor, 64 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 1995) (insubordination can justify termination even when protected activity is present)
- Gordon v. FedEx Freight, Inc., 674 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2012) (Illinois retaliatory-discharge analysis requires affirmative proof that discharge was primarily retaliatory)