Thompson v. Memorial Hosp. of Carbondale, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22909

Thompson, the sole African-American paramedic in his system, was placed on paid probation after he did not call medical control when a diabetic patient declined further treatment, a discrepancy from how others acted.
Memorial Hospital/JCAS centralized control through Memorial’s Medical Director; Thompson’s contract/relationship for §1981 purposes became a contested factual issue the hospital did not raise at trial.
Bierman, the EMS Coordinator, authored a critical memo and letters alleging protocol violations by Thompson and supervised the disciplinary process that led to probation.
Doolittle, Memorial’s Medical Director, approved and participated in Thompson’s probation after reviewing Bierman’s materials and run reports, with evidence suggesting Bierman significantly influenced the decision.
Thompson alleged racially hostile comments and discriminatory conduct contributing to a degraded working environment, culminating in a jury verdict for Thompson on §1981 race discrimination.
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Jackson County Ambulance Service and denied Memorial’s post-trial/Rule 50 motions; the jury awarded Thompson $500,000, later remitted to $250,000 on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1981 requires a contractual relationship in this case	Thompson contends a contractual relationship existed for §1981.	Memorial argues no actionable contract existed.	Waived: trial did not submit contract issue to jury; appeal affirming§1981 on waiver grounds.
Whether Bierman and Lence's comments were admissible as cat's paw evidence	Bierman’s racial animus and Lence's remarks could influence the decision.	Comments were not proper or probative of the decision maker's motive.	Admissible: singular influence could be inferred; evidence admissible for credibility and influence.
Whether Thompson suffered a materially adverse employment action	Probation constituted adverse action impacting duties and conditions.	Probation may not always be adverse; no guaranteed harm shown here.	Remains with verdict: probation deemed an adverse action; no vacatur of verdict.
Whether the hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims were properly adjudicated	Severe and pervasive racial harassment supported §1981/Title VII claims.	Harassment not sufficiently severe or pervasive; no constructive discharge.	Affirmed: cross-appeal on these theories rejected; no constructive discharge found.
Whether remittitur of compensatory damages was appropriate	Keep $500,000 for emotional distress.	Challenge excessive damages; seek remittitur.	Remittitur granted to $250,000; if Thompson rejects, new damages hearing.

Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 560 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2009) (cat's paw theory and singular influence in employment decisions)
Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 604 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2010) (singular influence standard for decision maker liability)
Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 479 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2007) (influence over information provided to decision maker)
Shlahtichman v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 615 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2010) (forfeiture/waiver principles in appellate review)
Farfaras v. Citizens Bank & Trust of Chicago, 433 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2006) (emotional distress awards and remittitur considerations)
Deloughery v. City of Chicago, 422 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2005) (upholding substantial emotional distress awards and remittitur standards)
Avitia v. Metro. Club of Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219 (7th Cir. 1995) (emotional distress damages evaluation context)
Marion County Coroner's Office v. E.E.O.C., 612 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2010) (remittitur framework and assessment of damages)
Fox v. Hayes, 600 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2010) (preservation of objections and jury instruction considerations)