Stacy Alexander v. Casino Queen Incorporated
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 368
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Stacy Alexander and Kim Rogers, long‑time African‑American cocktail waitresses at Casino Queen, sued for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII (and §1981), based on conduct from Oct. 11, 2007 to mid‑2010.
- Core allegations: frequent day‑to‑day floor reassignments that shifted them from high‑tip to low‑tip areas (reducing substantial tip income), harsher discipline (write‑ups, suspension, wrongful firing/reinstatement) and disparate denial of privileges (vacation, emergency days, post‑resignation work).
- Reassignments allegedly occurred up to twice weekly and plaintiffs estimated significant daily tip losses; discipline examples include disputed tardy write‑ups and selective enforcement of eating/break rules.
- Plaintiffs filed internal complaints and EEOC charges; the district court granted summary judgment to Casino Queen on all claims.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the hostile‑work‑environment claim but reversed and remanded the race discrimination and retaliation claims for trial, holding plaintiffs raised triable issues on adverse actions and disparate treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs suffered an "adverse employment action" sufficient for discrimination/retaliation prima facie cases | Reassignments, denied privileges, wrongful discipline/termination and lost post‑resignation tips caused significant financial harm (tips 40–73% of pay) | Actions were minor, speculative, or routine personnel decisions not causing significant change in employment benefits | Held adverse action: reassignments and disciplinary decisions could be economically significant given tips’ role; triable issue exists |
| Whether similarly situated non‑black employees received better treatment | White waitresses with similar jobs/supervisor/CBA treatment were reassigned to better areas, disciplined less, received approved leave and post‑resignation work | Employer says reassignments followed race‑neutral, prearranged floor plans and discipline was for legitimate policy violations | Held triable: white waitresses are materially comparable and credibility disputes over race‑neutral explanations preclude summary judgment |
| Whether plaintiffs established a hostile work environment | Plaintiffs point to frequent unfair discipline, reassignments, close supervision, and employer inaction on complaints | Employer contends conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to be objectively hostile | Held for employer: conduct, while offensive and frequent, was not sufficiently severe/objectively abusive to alter working conditions; summary judgment affirmed on this claim |
| Whether employer retaliated for protected complaints | Plaintiffs engaged in protected activity (internal complaints, EEOC charges) and then suffered adverse actions (reassignments, termination, loss of tips, removal of slots, prevented post‑resignation work) | Employer attributes actions to neutral policies and legitimate business reasons | Held triable: plaintiffs established prima facie retaliation and raised pretext issues; reversal and remand on retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive conduct alters employment conditions)
- Mullin v. Temco Machinery, Inc., 732 F.3d 772 (7th Cir.) (summary judgment review and direct/indirect proof methods)
- Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (adverse employment action requires significant change in benefits)
- Darchak v. City of Chicago Bd. of Educ., 580 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.) (assessment of self‑serving testimony at summary judgment)
- Williams v. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749 (7th Cir.) (credibility and jury role in resolving after‑the‑fact employer explanations)