Robert Formella v. Megan J. Brennan
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4482
7th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Robert Formella, a white postal police sergeant with 31 years’ service, sought a non‑competitive transfer (and later competed) for a supervisor vacancy that would have yielded approximately $7,000/year in premium pay; USPS denied the non‑competitive transfer and hired Officer Fields (African‑American).
- Formella filed EEO complaints alleging reverse race discrimination (white plaintiff), age discrimination (ADEA), and retaliation after he was not selected and after a dispute over withdrawal of retirement paperwork and subsequent transfer to a lower‑pay tour.
- Formella alleged Captain Douglas Williams (African‑American) retaliated by instituting time‑clock rules, criticizing reports, misclassifying leave, rejecting a doctor’s note, assigning safety checks, and humiliating him at a meeting.
- The agency issued a final decision denying discrimination and retaliation claims; Formella sued in federal court. USPS moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- The court found Formella failed to establish prima facie reverse‑race and ADEA claims (no background showing inclination to discriminate, no adequate comparators, and waiver of ADEA arguments), and failed to show actionable retaliation except arguably for a rejected doctor’s note — but no causation or pattern of retaliation was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse racial discrimination for denial of non‑competitive transfer | Formella: Brady denied his non‑competitive transfer while permitting others (e.g., Sgt. Wyatt) to transfer, and the vacancy was later filled by a non‑white applicant | USPS: Brady lawfully denied the transfer because the vacancy was posted and he had discretion; comparator situations differ (no posting for Wyatt) | No prima facie case — plaintiff waived background‑circumstances argument and failed to identify a similarly situated comparator; summary judgment affirmed |
| Reverse racial discrimination for hiring decision (Fields over Formella) | Formella: Fields was less qualified; selection was pretextual and rigged | USPS: Brady interviewed and scored candidates; Fields scored highest based on preparation and answers; non‑discriminatory reason for hire | No prima facie case and no pretext shown; employer’s honest belief in interview evaluations dispositive |
| Age discrimination (ADEA) | Formella: alleged age bias in transfer/selection | USPS: challenged sufficiency and timeliness; argued legitimate reasons for actions | Waived — plaintiff failed to develop ADEA arguments in district court and on appeal; summary judgment affirmed |
| Retaliation for filing EEO complaints | Formella: Captain Williams’ actions (time‑clock, scrutiny, leave misclassification, rejection of doctor’s note, humiliation, assignment of tasks) were materially adverse and causally connected to complaints | USPS: Most actions were minor annoyances not materially adverse; only rejection of doctor’s note could be adverse but no evidence it was caused by protected activity; no similarly situated comparators | Retaliation claim fails — only the doctor’s note rejection could be adverse, but plaintiff offered no direct or circumstantial evidence of causation or a retaliatory pattern; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Good v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard; comparator analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Mills v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 171 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 1999) (reverse‑discrimination standard modification)
- Ballance v. City of Springfield, 424 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2005) (elements of reverse‑race prima facie case)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (standard for materially adverse actions in retaliation claims)
- Roney v. Ill. Dept. of Transp., 474 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2007) (direct and indirect methods for retaliation proof)
- Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (circumstantial evidence and pattern‑of‑conduct theory)
- Henry v. Milwaukee Cty., 539 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2008) (overtime/premium pay as adverse action)
- Healy v. City of Chicago, 450 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2006) (interview performance as legitimate hiring reason)
- Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2012) (waiver of arguments not raised below)