Ryan Lord v. High Voltage Software, Incorpo
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18035
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- High Voltage hired Ryan Lord in Sept. 2006 as an associate producer; he worked on two teams and complained of coworker conduct beginning in June–July 2007.
- Lord reported a recurring workplace joke (“audio bug”) about his interest in a female coworker; HR investigated, said the joke was not sexual harassment, and told Lord to report further incidents immediately.
- After reassignment, coworker Nick Reimer allegedly engaged in repeated unwanted touching of Lord (four incidents in July 2007). Lord told Reimer to stop but did not immediately report those incidents to HR or his manager.
- Lord formally complained to HR on July 30, 2007; personnel then investigated. A mistaken write-up involving Lord led to an angry email in which Lord threatened to file administrative charges; the write-up was later withdrawn.
- On August 1, 2007, High Voltage fired both Reimer (for harassment) and Lord. Lord’s termination record cited failure to report harassment immediately (to HR and his manager), obsessive monitoring of coworkers, and insubordination.
- Lord sued under Title VII for hostile work environment and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for High Voltage, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coworker conduct created a Title VII hostile work environment (sex-based) | Lord: audio-joke and repeated unwanted touching were sexual harassment creating hostile environment | High Voltage: conduct was sexual horseplay, not discrimination because not motivated by sex | Court: No hostile-environment; no evidence harassment was "because of sex" (same-sex harassment requires evidence of sexual-motive or sex-based hostility) |
| Whether Lord engaged in protected activity when he complained to HR | Lord: his complaint sincerely opposed unlawful sexual harassment | High Voltage: complaints were not objectively reasonable as Title VII activity because there was no evidence of sex-based motive | Court: Lord’s belief was objectively unreasonable (no evidence of prohibited motive), so not protected activity |
| Whether termination was retaliation (causation) | Lord: firing closely followed his complaint and threat to file charges—timing shows retaliation | High Voltage: fired for legitimate nonretaliatory reasons (failure to follow reporting instructions, obsession with coworkers, insubordination) | Court: even assuming protected activity, plaintiff failed to show but-for causation because employer offered honestly held reasons and Lord produced no evidence of pretext |
| Whether employer’s reasons were pretextual | Lord: reasons were pretext; timing and alleged shifting explanations permit inference of mendacity | High Voltage: reasons consistent in substance and honestly held; multiple reasons common in employment decisions | Court: No genuine issue of material fact on pretext; record would not permit reasonable jury to find pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (same-sex harassment requires discrimination because of sex)
- Orton-Bell v. Indiana, 759 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.) (hostile-work-environment elements)
- Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., 224 F.3d 701 (7th Cir.) (objective-reasonableness requirement for protected activity)
- Magyar v. St. Joseph Reg’l Med. Ctr., 544 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.) (scope of objectively reasonable belief for retaliation)
- Castro v. DeVry Univ., Inc., 786 F.3d 559 (7th Cir.) (retaliation prima facie elements)
- Fine v. Ryan Int’l Airlines, 305 F.3d 746 (7th Cir.) (retaliation protection not limited to claims that ultimately succeed)
- Shepherd v. Slater Steels Corp., 168 F.3d 998 (7th Cir.) (inference analysis for same-sex harassment)