898 F.3d 747
7th Cir.2018Background
- Robert Smith, a male butcher at Rosebud Farm (mixed-sex small grocery), was repeatedly groped, taunted with sexual gestures, and racially insulted by male coworkers and his male supervisor over several years.
- Smith reported the sexual harassment internally multiple times; harassment escalated after he filed EEOC/IDHR charges in Jan 2008 (e.g., men banging cleavers, pointing knives, damage to his car).
- Smith quit in June 2008, claiming constructive discharge, then sued under Title VII (sex discrimination/hostile work environment), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (race discrimination and retaliation), and the Illinois Gender Violence Act. Four claims went to trial; the jury ruled for Smith.
- Jury awarded large compensatory and punitive damages; district court reduced the award under statutory caps and added back pay and prejudgment interest. Rosebud appealed, challenging (1) Title VII sex-discrimination verdict, (2) § 1981 retaliation verdict, and (3) denial of a new trial based on counsel’s closing remarks.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed in all respects, construing all facts in favor of Smith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith proved Title VII sex discrimination via hostile work environment (same-sex harassment) | Harassment was severe/pervasive and occurred because Smith was male; only men (not women) were groped/taunted, supporting sex-based discrimination | Conduct was "sexual horseplay," not discrimination; similar roughhousing affected multiple employees and was not based on sex | Affirmed for Smith: comparative evidence that only men were targeted in a mixed-sex workplace allowed a reasonable jury to infer sex discrimination under Title VII (distinguishing Shafer and Lord) |
| Whether § 1981 retaliation verdict was supported (coworkers retaliated after Smith filed race-discrimination charges) | Coworkers made working conditions intolerable (constructive discharge) after charges were filed | No evidence coworkers knew about Smith’s § 1981 charge, so they could not have retaliated | Affirmed: defendant forfeited the "lack of knowledge" sufficiency challenge by failing to raise it at trial; appellate review barred |
| Whether closing-argument comments comparing Rosebud to terrorists warranted new trial | Counsel’s analogy was improper and prejudicial, requiring a new trial | Defense failed to timely object on prejudice grounds; district court did not abuse discretion | Affirmed: objection to prejudice was forfeited; comments were not so extreme as to require a new trial and arguably hurt plaintiff more |
Key Cases Cited
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (defining hostile work environment under Title VII)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (same-sex harassment actionable only when because of sex)
- Shafer v. Kal Kan Foods, Inc., 417 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.) (same-sex sexual horseplay not necessarily sex discrimination)
- Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc., 839 F.3d 556 (7th Cir.) (sexual touching alone insufficient to prove discrimination)
- Quick v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 90 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir.) (evidence that only men were targeted can support inference of sex discrimination)
- CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (§ 1981 protects contract rights and encompasses retaliation claims)
- Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 831 F.3d 815 (7th Cir.) (preservation requirements for Rule 50 challenges)
- Hamdan v. Indiana Univ. Health N. Hosp., Inc., 880 F.3d 416 (7th Cir.) (forfeiture of trial objections)