Sklyarsky v. ABM Janitorial Services-North Central, Inc.
494 F. App'x 619
7th Cir.2012Background
- Sklyarsky, a Ukrainian janitor at 300 Riverside Plaza, was disciplined four times by ABM under a progressive discipline system spanning April 2008 to June 2009.
- The four reprimands did not affect pay or work time except the third, which led to a one-day suspension.
- Sklyarsky alleged discrimination based on Ukrainian national origin and retaliation for EEOC charges and a prior suit against a predecessor employer.
- District court granted summary judgment, holding no prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation and that the reprimands were not all adverse actions.
- On appeal, Sklyarsky challenges the district court’s adverse-action determinations and its analysis of discriminatory treatment and causation, and argues costs should not have been awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any reprimand constitutes an adverse action for discrimination | Sklyarsky argues at least the second reprimand harmed him and shows discrimination | ABM contends only a truly adverse action (the third reprimand) supports discrimination | No reprimand other than the third is adverse; discrimination claim fails on this point |
| Whether Sklyarsky established a prima facie case of discrimination | Sklyarsky points to records suggesting disparate treatment | No evidence of similarly situated non-Ukrainian comparator; no meeting of legitimate expectations | District court properly found no prima facie case for discrimination |
| Whether Sklyarsky's retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Reprimands linked to EEOC charges show causation | No evidence of causal link or pretext; timing not suspicious | Affirmed dismissal of retaliation claim for lack of causation evidence |
| Whether the district court properly awarded costs to ABM | Costs awarded were permissible under Rule 54(d)(1); judgment silent on costs is not denial of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Lloyd v. Swifty Transp., Inc., 552 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2009) (adverse-action standard for discrimination claims requires action to alter terms of employment)
- Oest v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 240 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2001) (written reprimands under progressive discipline not adverse actions)
- Mathirampuzha v. Potter, 548 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2008) (dismissals or penalties under plaintiff’s discipline schemes not automatically adverse actions)
- Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversal on causation and material adversity standards in discrimination/ retaliation)