Shannon Volling v. Kurtz Paramedic Services, Inc., 840 F.3d 378

Volling and Springer were EMTs affiliated with Metro and ARS; Volling filed EEOC charges and a federal suit alleging sexual harassment and related misconduct by ARS and Metro; Springer supported her and aided a state investigation.
After prolonged complaints and investigations, ARS terminated its subcontract with Metro on June 15, 2012, and replaced Metro with Kurtz the next day; Kurtz began hiring former Metro EMTs.
Plaintiffs allege ARS and Kurtz jointly rehired all former Metro EMTs except them, that Kurtz did not publicize openings to them, and that ARS instructed others (but not plaintiffs) how to apply.
Plaintiffs sued ARS and Kurtz for retaliation under Title VII, the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), and the Illinois Whistleblower Act (IWA); ARS settled, Kurtz moved to dismiss, and the district court dismissed with prejudice.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal as to Title VII and IHRA retaliation claims (finding plaintiffs adequately alleged an adverse action and causation despite not applying) and affirmed dismissal of the IWA claim (plaintiffs were not Kurtz employees).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs suffered a materially adverse failure-to-hire	Plaintiffs were qualified, were not told about openings, and were effectively prevented from applying — that is an adverse action	Kurtz: plaintiffs did not apply, so no adverse action	Court: adverse action sufficiently pleaded because employer’s withholding of notice can substitute for an application requirement
Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded causation between protected activity and adverse action	Plaintiffs contend Kurtz (aware of protected activity) jointly excluded them from hiring in retaliation	Kurtz: no connection — Kurtz was a separate contractor with no motive to retaliate for ARS/Metro complaints	Court: causation adequately pleaded — alleged joint conduct and knowledge plausibly link protected activity to non-hire
Whether IHRA claim should follow federal Title VII framework	Plaintiffs: IHRA adopts federal framework; same analysis applies	Kurtz: (implicitly) same defenses as Title VII	Court: IHRA retaliation claim survives for the same reasons as Title VII; reversed dismissal
Whether IWA covers non-employees/prospective employees	Plaintiffs: IWA should cover prospective employees analogous to Title VII/IHRA flexibility	Kurtz: IWA protects employees only	Court: IWA defines “employee”; plaintiffs were not Kurtz employees — IWA claim properly dismissed

Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading and reasonable inference principles)
Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., LLC, 401 F.3d 803 (failure-to-hire prima facie elements)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (prima facie framework not inflexible)
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (hiring/publication practices may deter applicants)
Loyd v. Phillips Bros., Inc., 25 F.3d 518 (relaxed application requirement when employer controls hiring notice/process)
Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co., 773 F.2d 857 (no application required where vacancies not publicized or referrals blocked)
Flowers v. Columbia College Chicago, 397 F.3d 532 (employer cannot adopt blanket rule excluding those who filed charges)
Hague v. Thompson Distrib. Co., 436 F.3d 816 (McDonnell Douglas flexibility)
Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866 (IHRA retaliation cognizable under Title VII framework)
Fischer v. Avanade, Inc., 519 F.3d 393 (allegation that plaintiff would have applied absent discrimination can suffice)
Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716 (district court’s discretion on pendent jurisdiction)