Rosemary Madlock v. WEC Energy Group, Inc.
885 F.3d 465
7th Cir.2018Background
- Rosemary Madlock, an African American WEPCO employee since 1977, worked as a Lead Customer Service Specialist in Industrial Billing and alleged long‑running conflict with her new supervisor, Cathy Wrycza.
- New management (2011) implemented stricter metrics; Madlock received several official and unofficial discipline entries between 2011–2013 for billing errors and conduct.
- In March 2013 Madlock was transferred from Industrial Billing to Volume Billing; the transfer did not reduce pay or title but she lost her lead team and was relocated to a central cubicle.
- Madlock filed an internal discrimination complaint against Wrycza on April 12, 2013; shortly thereafter (May 2013) she received a Record of Disciplinary Action for a prior billing error.
- Supervisors compiled a comprehensive list of Madlock’s prior coachings/discipline from her HR file during her grievance; Madlock alleged some entries were inaccurate and that the discipline and list were retaliatory.
- Madlock sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for WEPCO and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to Volume Billing was an adverse employment action for racial discrimination | Transfer was effectively a demotion/humiliation: lost supervisory team, isolated cubicle, coworkers/manager called it a demotion | Transfer left pay/title unchanged, loss of team was temporary and placement not objectively degrading | Not an adverse action; no actionable discrimination (summary judgment affirmed) |
| Whether May 16, 2013 discipline was retaliatory (direct method) | Discipline closely followed filing of internal complaint (temporal proximity) and list contained false entries showing retaliatory intent | Discipline was based on discovered billing error documented in HR records; supervisor who disciplined encouraged filing complaint; timing alone insufficient | Timing plus record evidence insufficient to show causal link; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether discipline/list support retaliation under indirect (comparator) method | Other employees were not disciplined for older errors, showing disparate treatment | No comparable employee identified with materially similar circumstances; list compiled in response to grievance, not promotion | No adequate comparator; indirect method fails |
| Whether alleged inaccuracies in HR/list show pretext or retaliatory motive | Inaccurate dates/entries are “false peppering” showing malevolent intent | List was compiled from HR file; no evidence management knowingly fabricated items | No evidence management knowingly falsified records; cannot infer retaliatory intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (test for causation in employment discrimination)
- Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2016) (retaliation frameworks and burdens)
- Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2003) (definition of adverse employment action)
- Williams v. Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co., 85 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 1996) (lateral transfer with minor changes not adverse)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof)
- Kampmier v. Emeritus Corp., 472 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity alone insufficient for retaliation)
- Bio v. Fed. Express Corp., 424 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2005) (requirements for similarly situated comparator)