Stepp v. Covance Cent. Lab. Servs., Inc., 931 F.3d 632

Stepp, an African‑American temporary kit‑production assistant at Covance, received positive reviews but was not converted to permanent status after nine months while two similar coworkers were.
Within his first three months he complained that team leader David Casteel favored female and white employees; a manager investigated and found the complaints baseless.
Stepp filed two EEOC charges (July and September 2016); September coincided with his nine‑month anniversary when conversion to permanent status commonly occurred.
Shortly after September, Casteel complained about Stepp’s conduct; supervisor Linda Ball told Stepp Covance did not make him permanent because of Casteel’s complaint.
Covance later instituted a hiring freeze and shortened a planned 90‑day extension for Stepp; Stepp’s term ended five weeks short of the extension.
Stepp sued pro se for race/sex discrimination and retaliation; on appeal he pursued (1) a failure‑to‑promote retaliation claim and (2) a claim that Covance shortened his 90‑day extension in retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stepp preserved a failure‑to‑promote retaliation claim	Stepp alleged Covance refused to hire him permanent because he filed retaliation/harassment complaints	Covance said the complaint did not give notice and Stepp waived the claim at deposition	Preserved: complaint alleged refusal to hire; deposition did not amend complaint; claim preserved
Whether evidence supports a trial on failure‑to‑promote retaliation	Timing (EEOC charge in Sept.), two similarly situated temps promoted, Ball’s statement linking non‑promotion to Casteel’s complaint, and weak proffered justification (freeze) support inference	Covance argued hiring freeze and lack of causal link between complaints and non‑promotion	Vacated summary judgment and remanded: reasonable jury could find retaliation
Whether Ball’s statement was admissible	Ball’s statement attributed Covance’s non‑promotion to Casteel’s complaint and supports inference of retaliation	Covance argued the statement was hearsay	Admissible as an admission by an agent of Covance within scope of agency
Whether Stepp preserved claim that his 90‑day extension was shortened in retaliation	Stepp’s complaint arguably alleged termination for complaints	Covance: Stepp did not press this claim at summary judgment, so no record development	Forfeited: Stepp did not raise it in opposing summary judgment, so claim waived

Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455 (7th Cir.) (retaliation inference from disparate treatment of similar employees)
Lauth v. Covance, Inc., 863 F.3d 708 (7th Cir.) (no distinction between direct and indirect evidence in retaliation cases)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir.) (suspicious timing can support inference of retaliation when accompanied by corroborating evidence)
Morgan v. SVT, LLC, 724 F.3d 990 (7th Cir.) (timing alone is insufficient to prove discrimination)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S.) (employer’s unworthy‑of‑credence justification can support finding of pretext)
Yahnke v. Kane Cty., 823 F.3d 1066 (7th Cir.) (insufficient employer explanation can cast doubt and support plaintiff’s inference of unlawful motive)
Simple v. Walgreen Co., 511 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.) (scope‑of‑agency analysis for admissions by agents)
Formella v. Brennan, 817 F.3d 503 (7th Cir.) (claim forfeiture where plaintiff fails to develop or press a claim at summary judgment)
United States v. 5443 Suffield Terrace, 607 F.3d 504 (7th Cir.) (forfeiture doctrine when a party fails to raise an argument at the appropriate time)