Teawanna Eppinger v. Caterpillar Inc.
682 F. App'x 479
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eppinger, a long‑time Caterpillar employee, was disciplined under a progressive attendance policy for multiple unexcused tardies/absences and ultimately discharged after a sixth violation.
- She had preapproved FMLA hours; she used FMLA for May 15, 2012, but did not call in or provide documentation for May 16–17, which Caterpillar treated as unexcused and led to suspensions.
- In September 2012 she failed a breathalyzer after a workplace incident, was terminated under the drug/alcohol policy, then reinstated under a Last Chance Agreement requiring counseling (which she partially missed).
- While the company was investigating her earlier discrimination charge, Eppinger incurred another unexcused tardy and was discharged following Labor Relations review and union input.
- Eppinger sued for racial discrimination (Title VII), FMLA interference/retaliation, and retaliation for complaining; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no evidence linking the discharge to race, FMLA use, or protected complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Racial discrimination (Title VII) | Eppinger argued she was treated more harshly because she is black (refusal of medical notes, differential walk‑out) | Caterpillar relied on undisputed attendance violations and legitimate, neutral progressive discipline | Judgment for defendants: no evidence linking discharge to racial animus; plaintiff conceded absence of comparators |
| FMLA interference/retaliation | Eppinger asserted discharge was tied to use of FMLA leave | Caterpillar showed FMLA day (May 15) was approved and discipline was for unexcused May 16–17 absences | Judgment for defendants: no interference—she was not disciplined for the day she used FMLA |
| Retaliation for complaining (Title VII/administrative charge) | Eppinger claimed discharge was retaliation for filing an EEOC/IDHR charge | Caterpillar pointed to preexisting attendance record and five prior violations before the charge; termination followed a later unexcused absence months after the charge | Judgment for defendants: no causal link or suspicious timing; no comparable employees shown |
| Breach of employment contract / new claims on appeal | Eppinger argued she raised a contract/other claims | Caterpillar & court noted she did not litigate a contract claim below | Waived on appeal: claim not raised in district court cannot be raised first on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaib v. Geo Grp., Inc., 819 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary‑judgment evidence viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012) (Title VII does not permit individual liability for supervisors)
- Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing individual liability under FMLA and economic‑reality test)
- Horwitz v. Bd. of Educ. of Avoca Sch. Dist. No. 37, 260 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2001) (FMLA individual liability implications)
- Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2010) (retaliation requires materially adverse action caused by protected activity)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (need for comparable employees to show discriminatory discipline)
- Peele v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 319 (7th Cir. 2002) (similarly addressing comparators and discipline)
- Fednav Int’l Ltd. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2010) (issues not raised below cannot be raised on appeal)
- O’Neal v. City of Chicago, 588 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2009) (arguments not raised on appeal are waived)