Skiba v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
884 F.3d 708
7th Cir.2018Background
- Skiba (hired at 55) progressed through Illinois Central Railroad (IC) management roles and at 58 was promoted to Motive Power Supervisor reporting to Daniel Clermont; several supervisors were Canadian.
- From mid‑2012 Skiba complained to HR about Clermont’s abusive management, described as a "personality conflict," and sought reassignment; he did not allege age or national‑origin discrimination in those complaints.
- After an internal investigation and continuing issues, IC consolidated the Homewood Motive Power Department in January 2013, Clermont was reassigned to Canada, and Skiba’s position was eliminated; IC offered Skiba a non‑management clerical role, which he accepted in March 2013.
- Skiba applied to roughly 82 management openings without success and alleged at least 37 were filled by substantially younger candidates; HR made some attempts to help but reported concerns about Skiba’s presentation to hiring managers.
- Skiba filed an EEOC charge alleging age and national‑origin discrimination and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for IC and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skiba engaged in statutorily protected activity for a retaliation claim | Skiba argued his complaints about Clermont and emails put IC on notice and thus were protected | IC argued his complaints described a personality conflict and did not allege discrimination tied to a protected characteristic | Court held Skiba did not engage in protected activity because he never linked complaints to age or national origin, so retaliation claim fails |
| Whether IC unlawfully discriminated under the ADEA (age) | Skiba argued adverse actions (position elimination, demotion, failure to hire) were caused by age and pointed to statements, hiring deviations, younger hires, and pretext | IC offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons: business restructuring, candidate qualifications, and hiring managers’ independent assessments | Court held evidence insufficient for a reasonable jury to find age was the but‑for cause; summary judgment for IC affirmed |
| Whether IC unlawfully discriminated under Title VII (national origin) | Skiba pointed to Canadian supervisors and claimed national‑origin animus | IC argued no evidence linked hiring or adverse actions to national origin | Court held plaintiff failed to show any action motivated by national origin; Title VII claim fails |
| Whether evidence of statements, hiring‑practice deviations, and comparators created a triable issue of discrimination | Skiba relied on assorted remarks, alleged deviations from interview policies, and a list of younger hires as circumstantial proof | IC showed context for remarks, that deviations were unproven or explained, and comparators were not shown similarly situated | Court held the statements and comparator evidence did not raise a genuine issue; plaintiff failed to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate treatment burden‑shifting)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but‑for causation)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (consider evidence as a whole at summary judgment)
- Gleason v. Mesirow Fin., Inc., 118 F.3d 1134 (complaints must indicate discrimination to be protected activity)
- Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487 (context matters for remarks in discrimination cases)
- Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (standard for showing employer pretext)