Venegas v. Aerotek, Inc.
171 F. Supp. 3d 765
| N.D. Ill. | 2016Background
- Venegas was hired by staffing agency Aerotek in March 2011 to fill a Navistar assignment; Navistar supervised and controlled her day-to-day work. She was an at-will Aerotek employee assigned to Navistar.
- She became pregnant (twins) in mid-2012, notified Navistar and Aerotek, and in late November/early December 2012 sought maternity/FMLA leave and reported doctor's bed rest recommendation.
- Navistar terminated Venegas’s assignment on December 4, 2012; Aerotek learned of the termination after Navistar decided and informed Venegas she was no longer assigned. Aerotek sent FMLA paperwork on December 6, 2012; Venegas did not return it.
- Venegas sued alleging FMLA interference and retaliation, multiple IHRA pregnancy/discrimination claims, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract against Aerotek and Navistar; she later settled with Navistar and dismissed Navistar from the case.
- Aerotek moved for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment on most IHRA and contract-based claims and on the FMLA retaliation claim, denied summary judgment on FMLA interference; Navistar’s third-party complaint dismissal was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aerotek is liable for Navistar’s actions (Counts III, IV, VI) | Aerotek can be held derivatively liable for Navistar’s statutory violations despite Navistar’s settlement/release | Aerotek had no control over Navistar; plaintiff released Navistar and cannot preserve claims against Aerotek based on Navistar’s acts | Aerotek not liable for Navistar’s actions; counts dismissed (summary judgment for Aerotek) |
| FMLA interference (Count I) | Aerotek interfered by terminating Venegas before she received and could return FMLA certification paperwork | Venegas never submitted required certification, so no entitlement to FMLA benefits; no interference | Genuine factual disputes (timeliness, notice of 15-day deadline, and whether she effectively applied) — summary judgment denied on interference |
| FMLA retaliation (Count II) | Termination occurred after Venegas requested FMLA — retaliatory motive can be inferred | Aerotek had no role in Navistar’s termination decision and no retaliatory intent; termination followed the end of the Navistar assignment | No evidence of Aerotek’s retaliatory intent; summary judgment granted for Aerotek on retaliation |
| IHRA employment-agency discrimination (Count V) | Aerotek failed to refer Venegas to other clients after assignment ended | Aerotek had no statutory duty to refer and provided no discriminatory refusal; no evidence Venegas sought other placements | Venegas produced no evidence she sought referrals or was refused; summary judgment granted for Aerotek |
| Promissory estoppel / breach of contract (Counts VII & VIII) | Aerotek (via emails) promised to extend her assignment through July 2013; Venegas relied to her detriment | Employment agreement was at-will; alleged emails not produced and no reasonable detrimental reliance shown | No admissible evidence of promised modification or reasonable detrimental reliance; summary judgment granted for Aerotek |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Sycamore Mun. Hosp., 156 Ill.2d 511 (Ill. 1993) (settlement with agent extinguishes derivative claims against principal despite reservation clause)
- Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.) (statutory civil-rights claims are torts for purposes of release principles)
- Dunn v. Washington Cnty. Hosp., 429 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2005) (employer liable for its own acts and must take reasonable care to prevent or redress third‑party violations)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must present more than metaphysical doubt at summary judgment)
- Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor Corp., 233 Ill.2d 46 (Ill. 2009) (elements of promissory estoppel under Illinois law)