Smith v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Co.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5239
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Smith, a former Lafayette Bank branch manager, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA in 2010 suit.
- She had been at the Bank since 1980 and became Lafayette Station branch manager in 1995.
- Her 2004–2005 performance evaluations rated her as “improvement needed” due to complaints about attitude and behavior.
- On May 31, 2006, she was given the option to resign or commit to improved conduct; she chose to sign a commitment letter.
- On June 20, 2006, Smith was fired at age 44; she filed an EEOC discrimination charge in November 2006, after termination.
- Bank moved for summary judgment on Smith’s ADEA retaliation claim, and Smith later waived her ADEA claim; district court granted summary judgment on retaliation, remanding counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith engaged in statutorily protected activity constituting retaliation | Smith contends protected activity via complaints and EEOC filing | Bank argues complaints were general and not tied to age; EEOC filing occurred post-termination | No protected activity connected to age; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether generalized complaints can support ADEA retaliation under direct/indirect methods | Smith argues certain complaints indicated age discrimination | General complaints insufficient to show discrimination based on age | General complaints do not constitute protected activity under ADEA |
| Whether the EEOC charge saved the retaliation claim given knowledge requirement | Charge would satisfy protected activity requirement | Bank had no knowledge of the charge at the time of termination; no causal link | No knowledge of protected activity by Bank at termination; claim fails under both direct/indirect |
| Whether a post-termination EEOC filing can establish causation for retaliation | Charge timing could show retaliation | Filing five months after termination cannot establish causation | Filing after termination does not support retaliation; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Szymanski v. County of Cook, 468 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2006) (direct/indirect retaliation standard under ADEA)
- Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct method requires protected activity, adverse action, causation)
- Haywood v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 323 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2003) (causal link in ADEA retaliation cases)
- Tomanovich v. City of Indianapolis, 457 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2006) (protected activity must be connected to statutorily protected class; vague complaints insufficient)
- Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Serv., Inc., 336 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2003) (EEOC charge can satisfy statutorily protected activity requirement)
- Nagle v. Village of Calumet Park, 554 F.3d 1106 (7th Cir. 2009) (employer knowledge of protected activity required for retaliation claims)
- Mattson v. Caterpillar, Inc., 359 F.3d 885 (7th Cir. 2004) (knowledge requirement for retaliation; timing matters)
- Gleason v. Mesirow Fin., Inc., 118 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir. 1997) (general complaints insufficient to establish protected activity)