Robert Hillmann v. City of Chicago, 834 F.3d 787

Longtime City of Chicago employee Robert Hillmann injured his right arm in 1984 and entered a 1995 accommodation allowing reassignment to chief timekeeper duties.
In summer–fall 2000 Hillmann’s condition worsened, he requested accommodation, underwent fitness-for-duty exams, filed a workers’ compensation claim (Sept. 1, 2000), and experienced reassignment, denied merit raises, and periods off work.
In 2002 the City implemented a citywide reduction-in-force (RIF); Commissioner Al Sanchez approved eliminating timekeeping positions (including Hillmann’s); Sanchez did not know of Hillmann’s workers’ compensation claim.
Hillmann sued alleging IWCA retaliatory discharge (targeted in the RIF for asserting workers’ compensation rights) and ADA retaliation/denial of raises and RIF targeting tied to accommodation requests.
Case tried twice: first trial jury found for City on IWCA claim; successor judge granted new trial (admitting previously excluded testimony); second jury found for Hillmann on IWCA and awarded damages; judge found for City on ADA after advisory verdict.
Seventh Circuit held both claims failed as a matter of law for lack of causation (no evidence the final RIF decision‑maker knew of Hillmann’s workers’ compensation claim; no evidence the accommodation request was the but‑for cause of adverse actions).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a retaliatory‑discharge claim under Illinois common law (IWCA context) was proven	Hillmann: RIF and adverse assignments followed his injury and WC claim; supervisors knew and acted to aggravate him, leading to RIF inclusion	City: RIF was a neutral, budget‑driven elimination of obsolete timekeeping positions; final decision‑maker (Sanchez) lacked knowledge of Hillmann’s WC claim	Claim fails as a matter of law — no evidence the decision‑maker knew of WC claim, so causation not met; judgment for City on IWCA claim
Whether ADA claim (denial of merit raises and RIF targeting) was proven	Hillmann: his accommodation request led to denied raises and inclusion in the RIF	City: merit denials resulted from detailing, absenteeism/tardiness; RIF selection was budget‑based and position‑based, not disability‑based	Claim fails — plaintiff produced no evidence that the accommodation request was the but‑for cause of adverse actions; judgment for City on ADA claim
Whether the second‑trial order was improper (new trial after initial judge excused witnesses invoking Fifth)	City: successor judge erred; first jury’s verdict should be reinstated or at least limited new trial on damages	Hillmann: excusal of witnesses was improper; adverse inference should have been available	Court declined to reinstate first verdict but viewed the procedural ruling under de novo review; outcome moot because claims fail on causation merits

Beatty v. Olin Corp., 693 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2012) (recognizes Illinois common‑law retaliatory‑discharge claim as narrow exception to at‑will doctrine and requires causation)
Phillips v. Cont'l Tire The Americas, LLC, 743 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2014) (but‑for causation is necessary yet not always sufficient in retaliatory‑discharge contexts)
Casanova v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 616 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2010) (causation element in retaliatory‑discharge claims requires more than temporal sequence)
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1976) (Fifth Amendment invocation in civil trials may permit adverse inference)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (employment retaliation claims require but‑for causation)
Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 591 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2010) (ADA retaliation and adverse employment decisions require but‑for causation)