Robin Willie Turner v. Hirschbach Motor Lines
854 F.3d 926
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Turner, an African American applicant, was offered a truck-driver position contingent on orientation and a DOT drug test; he tested positive for marijuana.
- MedTox split Turner’s urine sample, tested one portion (positive), and stored the split; the positive result was verified by independent medical review officer Dr. Richard Thompson and reported to Hirschbach.
- Hirschbach’s safety officer Lester Winegarden told Turner he could request a split (second) test; Turner says Winegarden discouraged and then cancelled the split test by falsely telling Dr. Thompson Turner had changed his mind; Winegarden denies this.
- Nancy Thompson (Hirschbach employee) evaluated applicants and declined to hire Turner after the positive result; Turner left orientation and was not hired.
- Turner sued under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Illinois civil conspiracy law, alleging race discrimination (including a “cat’s paw” theory) and a conspiracy with Dr. Thompson to cancel the split test.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hirschbach; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding Turner lacked evidence tying alleged racial animus to the hiring decision or showing an agreement for civil conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winegarden’s alleged racial animus (a non-decisionmaker) can impose liability under a cat’s paw theory | Winegarden’s animus caused cancellation of split test, which proximately caused Turner’s non-hiring | Nancy Thompson, the decisionmaker, relied on a verified positive drug test; Turner lacks evidence the test was unreliable or that the split test would have been negative | Court: Turner must show a causal link; absent evidence the initial result was false or the split would clear him, no proximate causation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether violation of DOT procedures (failure to complete split test) alone establishes discrimination by the decisionmaker | Turner: DOT rule violation suffices to infer discrimination by the hiring official | Hirschbach: DOT rules don’t forbid hiring on one verified positive test; no evidence Thompson knew Turner had requested a split test | Court: Regulatory noncompliance does not substitute for evidence that Thompson knew of or acted from racial animus; no discrimination shown |
| Whether reporting Turner’s positive result to the industry consortium was discriminatory | Turner: reporting harmed him and reflected disparate treatment | Hirschbach: reporting was routine and required by federal regulations | Court: Reporting was routine and regulatory; not discriminatory |
| Whether Hirschbach and Dr. Thompson conspired to cancel the split test (Illinois law) | Turner: Dr. Thompson’s failure to confirm Turner’s change meant he joined an agreement to cancel test | Hirschbach: No evidence of an agreement; Dr. Thompson acted as independent MRO per regulations | Court: Civil conspiracy requires an agreement; Turner presented no evidence Dr. Thompson agreed with Winegarden to cancel the split test; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Michigan City Plant Planning Dep’t, 755 F.3d 594 (7th Cir.) (cat’s paw proximate-cause requirement)
- Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 (7th Cir.) (cat’s paw causation standard)
- Johnson v. Koppers, Inc., 726 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.) (no inference of causation where independent evidence supported adverse action)
- Young v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 468 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir.) (biased investigator’s influence insufficient absent causal link to decisionmaker)
- Stockett v. 221 F.3d 1002 (7th Cir.) (employer enforcement of clear drug policy does not alone show discrimination)
- Borsellino v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 477 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (Illinois civil-conspiracy law requires an agreement)