Steven Lauth v. Covance, Inc., 863 F.3d 708

Lauth, hired in 2006 at age 54, worked as a second-shift supervisor in Covance’s kit production department and received repeated PMD (performance) comments from supervisors about poor communication and abrasive management style from 2006–2012.
In 2011 Lauth submitted an AlertLine complaint about coworker Aaron Ellsworth (explicitly disavowing discrimination based on age); HR investigated, found Ellsworth had behaved inappropriately, and placed him on a PIP that he completed in 2012.
After continued disputes, Lauth received progressive discipline in 2012: a written warning (July), a PIP (August), and multiple complaints from his shift in October about intimidation/unprofessionalism; he was terminated on October 25, 2012.
Lauth filed two EEOC charges (January and September 2012) alleging age discrimination and retaliation (first charge was dismissed by the EEOC; suit followed based on the September charge).
The district court granted summary judgment for Covance on both ADEA claims; the clerk entered a bill of costs awarding Covance $7,506.87 (including $2,000 deposition fee for Covance’s expert). Lauth appealed the summary judgment and the costs award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was age discrimination under ADEA	Lauth: circumstantial evidence (retirement question, favorable treatment of younger coworker Ellsworth, satisfactory work history) shows age was cause	Covance: longstanding documented performance/communication problems, progressive discipline legitimate and non‑age based	No; summary judgment for Covance — no evidence that age was but‑for cause
Whether termination was retaliation for EEOC charges	Lauth: discipline and termination followed his EEOC filings and were pretextual	Covance: actions followed documented complaints, warnings, and PIP; termination based on continued conduct	No; summary judgment for Covance — no causal link proven
Whether AlertLine complaint was protected activity for retaliation	Lauth: AlertLine complaint was a protected complaint leading to retaliation	Covance: AlertLine complaint disavowed age discrimination and thus was not protected under ADEA	Court: AlertLine complaint not protected (it disclaimed age basis); only EEOC charges qualified
Whether the $2,000 expert deposition fee in bill of costs was taxable	Lauth: that expert fee is not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and should be vacated	Covance: costs award procedurally proper; Lauth failed to timely object	Court: affirmed costs award — Lauth waived challenge by not timely objecting under Rule 54(d)(1)

Whitaker v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 849 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and viewing facts favorably to nonmovant)
Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (discarding strict direct/indirect proof dichotomy; evaluate all evidence together)
David v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508, 846 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 2017) (after Ortiz, question is whether evidence supports a jury verdict of intentional discrimination)
Ripberger v. Corizon, Inc., 773 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2014) (ADEA requires age to be but‑for cause of adverse action)
Hanners v. Trent, 674 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2012) (test for similarly situated employees)
Simpson v. Beaver Dam Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 780 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2015) (employer’s honest belief in the proffered reason matters; court does not judge fairness)
Hutt v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 757 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (elements required to prove retaliation claim)
Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (speculation about employer’s true motives insufficient to survive summary judgment)
Cooper v. Eagle River Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 270 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2001) (failure to timely object to taxed costs under Rule 54(d) waives challenge)
O’Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2001) (award of costs reviewed for abuse of discretion)