37 F.4th 1220
7th Cir.2022Background
- Sam Stamey, a long‑time Forest River wiring installer (hired 2007), alleges coworkers began an age‑based harassment campaign in late 2017 when he was 61, continuing about 10 months.
- Allegations: roughly 1,000 verbal age‑related insults from many coworkers plus repeated vandalism/interference with his tools and workstation (graffiti, taped/screwed shut cabinets, cutting a coffee‑maker cord, etc.).
- Stamey complained repeatedly to HR and supervisors (Jeff Rowe, Wendy Tubicsak, supervisors Frank Pontius then Mike Brady, and plant manager Scott McDonald); management’s responses were limited (a reprimand/meeting, characterized as “horseplay”) and did not end the abuse.
- Stamey filed an EEOC charge in June 2018; he resigned on August 10, 2018 after a supervisor taunted him in front of coworkers; he later filed suit under the ADEA for constructive discharge.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Forest River, finding Stamey’s working conditions not sufficiently intolerable and his resignation premature; the Seventh Circuit majority reversed and remanded for trial (dissent would have affirmed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive discharge — were working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign? | Stamey: pervasive, sustained age‑based insults (~1,000) plus vandalism caused severe emotional/physical effects — met the high Suders standard | Forest River: insults/pranks were vulgar but not equivalent to threats/egregious supervisor conduct; many comments not age‑specific | Majority: dispute of material fact; viewed in Stamey’s favor, a jury could find conditions sufficiently egregious — summary judgment reversed |
| Futility of internal remedies — was further pursuit of employer remedies futile or unreasonable? | Stamey: multiple complaints to HR and supervisors produced only minimal action; plant manager trivialized conduct and did not monitor or threaten consequences, so further complaints would be futile | Forest River: it investigated, held meetings, and provided complaint procedures; Stamey unreasonably quit without giving employer more time or using procedures fully | Majority: fact question for jury — evidence permits finding that management’s minimal response made further complaints futile |
| Evidentiary/sham‑affidavit issue — can Stamey rely on affidavit and specific deposition statements that contradict a prior general deposition answer? | Stamey: specific deposition testimony and affidavit show he spoke to Brady after the EEOC filing; admissible for summary judgment | Forest River/district court: affidavit contradicts earlier deposition and should be excluded as a sham | Majority: district court erred to ignore specific deposition testimony; sham‑affidavit rule does not preclude this evidence at summary judgment; credibility for jury to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (constructive discharge occurs when working conditions are so intolerable a reasonable person would resign)
- Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (employer’s failure to respond to repeated offensive conduct can support constructive discharge even absent physical threats)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires but‑for causation)
- Porter v. Erie Foods Int'l, Inc., 576 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2009) (employer response and futility doctrine in constructive discharge context)
- Patton v. Keystone RV Co., 455 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2006) (physical threats or reasonable fear of serious harm can justify immediate resignation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; draw all justifiable inferences for nonmoving party)
- Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. Conveyor Accessories, Inc., 955 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2020) (appellate review of factual inferences on summary judgment)
- Gawley v. Indiana Univ., 276 F.3d 301 (7th Cir. 2001) (constructive discharge inquiry considers totality of circumstances and employee’s use of employer’s procedures)