Rapold v. Baxter International Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17749
7th Cir.2013Background
- Rapold, a Swiss/Belgian national, was offered a CT Medical Director position at Baxter in Deerfield, IL, but the offer was withdrawn before relocation.
- Baxter sponsored a temporary O-1 visa via a European consultancy arrangement to start work from Europe; a later in-person start was planned in Deerfield.
- Hunt (Baxter VP) oversaw CT and learned of multiple incidents indicating problematic behavior by Rapold; Baxter considered these in withdrawing the offer.
- Incidents included visa-process communications, IT issues, allegedly angry/abusive conduct in meetings, and an altercation with a relocation agent; Rapold denied most improper conduct.
- Hunt advised withdrawal after evaluating six+ instances; Baxter ultimately withdrew the offer and Rapold sued in state court, which Baxter removed to federal court on Title VII grounds.
- At trial, Rapold requested a mixed-motive instruction; the district court declined and gave a pre–Desert Palace but-for instruction; jury found for Baxter; Rapold appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mixed-motive instruction was appropriate under § 2000e-2(m). | Rapold argues origin was a motivating factor. | Baxter contends only behavior mattered; no mixed motive. | No reversible error; evidence insufficient for motive instruction under standards. |
| Whether the court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law. | Rapold contends evidence shows national origin contributed. | Baxter argues behavior alone justified withdrawal. | Evidence supported Baxter; no JMOL for Rapold. |
| Whether the court’s reasoning and jury instructions, viewed as a whole, misinformed the jury on mixed motives. | Rapold asserts misstatement of mixed-motive framework. | Baxter argues pattern instruction correctly stated law. | Instructions were not error-seriously prejudicial; harmless in light of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2003) (set forth standards for § 2000e-2(m) mixed-motive actions)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (mixed-motives not allowed in ADEA; framework recognized)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (recognizes mixed-motives as possible under evolving framework)
- Smith v. Xerox Corp., 602 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2010) (supports not requiring plaintiff to concede legitimacy of employer’s reasons)
- Boyd v. Ill. State Police, 384 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2004) (discusses when mixed-motive instruction appropriate and complete-defense scenarios)