Regina Baines v. Walgreen Company
863 F.3d 656
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Regina Baines, a Black former Walgreens pharmacy technician, filed multiple EEOC charges in 2007–2009 alleging race discrimination and retaliation; Michelle Birch, the district manager, was involved in handling those earlier charges.
- Baines applied for rehire in July 2014 to a Wauwatosa Walgreens; pharmacy supervisor Hannah Ruehs interviewed her and later hired Lisa Martin (Baines’ less-experienced cousin) instead.
- Martin testified Ruehs told her Birch intervened and said "I could not hire her," and Ruehs initially denied interviewing Baines until confronted with a voicemail; Walgreens’ hiring records for Baines (including interview scores) were missing.
- Baines sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII for retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Walgreens, finding no causal link between the earlier EEOC filings and the 2014 failure to rehire.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that circumstantial evidence (Martin’s testimony, missing records, deviation from hiring norms, and apparent false explanations) created genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff showed a causal link between prior EEOC activity and 2014 failure to rehire | Baines: Martin’s testimony linking Birch’s intervention to Baines, plus missing records and departures from normal hiring, permit an inference of retaliation | Walgreens: No direct evidence of retaliatory intent; long time gap weakens any inference; other lawful reasons (negative coworker review) explain non-hire | Court: Reversed summary judgment — circumstantial evidence (including Martin’s admissible testimony) suffices to create a jury question |
| Admissibility of Martin’s testimony recounting Ruehs’ statement that Birch forbade hiring Baines | Testimony is admissible as (1) Birch’s order is a non-hearsay command and (2) Ruehs’ report to Martin is an admission by a party’s agent under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) | Walgreens: Hearsay within hearsay; innermost statement (Birch to Ruehs) inadmissible | Court: Testimony admissible; innermost layer was a command (not hearsay) and Ruehs’ statement is an opposing-party admission |
| Whether deviations from normal hiring practices support an inference of pretext/retaliation | Baines: Birch’s unusual intervention in a single store and missing records are circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive | Walgreens: Intervention didn’t occur or had lawful basis; disputes are factual | Court: Deviations and unexplained intervention permit an inference of unlawful intent and preclude summary judgment |
| Effect of multi-year gap between protected activity and adverse action | Baines: The gap is explainable (she was off payroll since 2008) and is buttressed by other circumstantial evidence linking Birch | Walgreens: Long delay undermines causal inference; timing alone cannot establish causation | Court: Time gap does not defeat causation when additional circumstantial evidence supports an inference of retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582 (7th Cir.) (summary-judgment standard on appeal and construing facts for nonmovant)
- Greengrass v. Int’l Monetary Sys. Ltd., 776 F.3d 481 (7th Cir.) (describing but-for causation standard for retaliation)
- Morgan v. SVT, LLC, 724 F.3d 990 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff may assemble circumstantial evidence to let a jury infer discrimination)
- Simple v. Walgreen Co., 511 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.) (subordinate’s account of explanations admissible against employer)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S.) (employer’s false explanation may permit an inference of discriminatory intent)
- Lalvani v. Cook County, 269 F.3d 785 (7th Cir.) (long time gaps can defeat causation absent other supporting evidence)