Swyear v. Fare Foods Corp.
911 F.3d 874
7th Cir.2018Background
- Amy Swyear was hired as an outside sales representative by Fare Foods in June 2015; she alleges sex discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and breach of contract after her August 2015 termination.
- Workplace culture included sexist/offensive nicknames and crude conversations; Swyear overheard but was not personally targeted with those epithets.
- On July 15, 2015, coworker Russell Scott behaved inappropriately with Swyear at a hotel (touching, propositions, persistent knocks/calls); Swyear reported the incident to HR on July 23.
- Fare Foods investigated, separated Scott and Swyear, and thereafter largely kept Swyear in the office rather than on the road.
- Management documented repeated performance issues (tardiness, route deviations, misuse of company vehicle) and gave Swyear a 30‑day improvement period on August 3; she was terminated on August 6, 2015.
- District court granted Fare Foods summary judgment on all claims; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual harassment (hostile work environment) | Fare Foods' sexist culture and the hotel incident with Scott together created a hostile environment. | Occasional crude banter and a single inappropriate coworker incident were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable. | Affirmed: Not sufficiently severe or pervasive; plaintiff subjective offense not matched by objective standard. |
| Sex discrimination (disparate treatment) | Swyear was meeting expectations and was fired because she is female; employer's proffered reasons are pretext. | Swyear had documented performance problems and violated vehicle policy; legitimate non‑discriminatory reasons for firing. | Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to show she met legitimate expectations or that employer's reasons were pretext. |
| Retaliation (after reporting Scott) | Termination was causally connected to her complaint about Scott. | Termination was for prior, documented performance deficiencies; no evidence of causal link or pretext. | Affirmed: Plaintiff did not prove she met legitimate expectations nor rebut employer's neutral reasons. |
| Breach of contract (employment terms) | An unsigned employment document and practices created contractual promises (outside role, vehicle, credit card) that Fare Foods breached. | Even if contract formed, plaintiff failed to show breach or damages from alleged failures. | Affirmed: Plaintiff waived/failed to develop damage and breach proofs; summary judgment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc., 218 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes levels of physical contact and harassment sufficient to create hostile work environment)
- Johnson v. Advocate Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2018) (clarifies severity/pervasiveness standard and rejects a "hellish" threshold)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (totality of circumstances governs hostile‑work‑environment inquiry)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Duldulao v. St. Mary of Nazareth Hosp. Ctr., 115 Ill.2d 482 (Ill. 1986) (Illinois test for implied contract altering at‑will employment)
- Yuknis v. First Student, Inc., 481 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2007) (limits employer liability for overheard, non‑directed offensive remarks)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (McDonnell Douglas is not the exclusive test for circumstantial discrimination evidence)