Sharif Hamzah v. Woodman's Food Market, Inc.
693 F. App'x 455
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Sharif Hamzah, a 46-year-old African-American utility clerk at Woodman’s, alleged supervisors made racist, ageist, and anti-heterosexual remarks and then fired him after he complained to corporate.
- Hamzah sued under Title VII and the ADEA claiming race discrimination, hostile work environment (race and age), retaliation, and initially sexual-orientation discrimination.
- District court screened the pro se complaint: dismissed sexual-orientation claim (relying on circuit precedent), allowed race and some hostile-environment claims to proceed, but dismissed age-discharge theory for lack of causal detail.
- After discovery, district court granted summary judgment to Woodman’s on hostile-work-environment (age and race) and retaliation, but allowed race-discharge claim to go to trial under a "cat’s paw" theory; plaintiff was represented at trial by counsel recruited by the court.
- A jury found for Woodman’s on the race-discharge claim; plaintiff appealed, raising (1) Title VII sexual-orientation exclusion, (2) errors on summary judgment for retaliation and age hostile environment, (3) refusal to allow amendment to add a contract claim, and (4) procedural errors at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII covers sexual-orientation discrimination | Hamzah: district court wrongly dismissed sexual-orientation claim | Woodman’s: claim not exhausted with EEOC (not checked or alleged) | Sexual-orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII (Hively), but Hamzah failed to exhaust administrative remedies; claim barred |
| Whether single ageist comment created hostile work environment | Hamzah: comment that he was "too old" supports ADEA hostile-environment claim | Woodman’s: isolated remark not severe or pervasive enough | Affirmed summary judgment for Woodman’s — single isolated comment insufficient |
| Whether written complaints were protected activity for retaliation | Hamzah: his letters to corporate were protected complaints prompting retaliation | Woodman’s: letters complained about discipline, not discrimination, so not protected | Affirmed summary judgment for Woodman’s — complaints were not protected activity |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend to add a contract claim late in the case | Hamzah: should have been allowed to add breach-of-contract claim | Woodman’s: amendment would be futile and untimely after discovery closed and trial set | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999) (district courts may screen in forma pauperis complaints)
- Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., 224 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2000) (prior Seventh Circuit holding that Title VII did not cover sexual orientation)
- Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. of Ind., 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. en banc 2017) (Title VII prohibits sexual-orientation discrimination)
- Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Cir. Ct. of Cook Cty., 804 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2015) (EEOC charge exhaustion is a precondition to a Title VII suit)
- Woods v. City of Berwyn, 803 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2015) ("cat’s paw" liability where biased subordinate influences decisionmaker)
- Racicot v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 414 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2005) (single isolated comment insufficient for hostile work environment)
- Cole v. Bd. of Trs. of N. Ill. Univ., 838 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2016) (requirements for protected activity in a retaliation claim)
- Johnson v. Cypress Hill, 641 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2011) (denial of leave to amend after discovery and dispositive motions may be affirmed)