Virginia Mourning v. Ternes Packaging, Indiana, Inc
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15695
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mourning worked at Ternes Packaging–Indiana from 1997 until her termination in April 2013; she managed the Order Administration division and supervised ten employees.
- She took FMLA leave in Feb 2013 for encephalopathy, returned in less than two months, and was still on/returning from leave when subordinate complaints surfaced.
- On March 20, 2013 eight of her ten subordinates submitted internal complaints accusing Mourning of intimidation, public humiliation, micromanaging, and unpredictability; additional complaints came from a customer (Allison Transmission) about performance and data-system use.
- Howard Ternes (the parent company) investigated after being informed by Ternes’ general manager Frey and director Brown; investigators concluded Mourning exhibited unprofessional conduct and failed to meet customer expectations.
- Howard Ternes fired Frey and Mourning; Mourning’s position was filled by another female employee; Mourning sued Ternes (the subsidiary) under Title VII (sex discrimination) and the FMLA (retaliation).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendant; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding Mourning failed to show causation for either Title VII or FMLA claims or pretext for the stated reasons for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mourning terminated because of her sex (Title VII)? | Mourning argues she was treated less favorably than a male comparator (Walter Fish) and thus fired due to sex. | Defendant says termination resulted from subordinate/customer complaints and legitimate performance concerns, not sex. | Court: No — Mourning failed to show discriminatory motive or an adequate comparator and did not show pretext. |
| Did Mourning establish pretext for termination? | Mourning contends the complaints and customer criticisms were false, so employer’s reason was pretextual. | Defendant maintains decisionmakers relied on investigations and credible reports; no evidence they knew reports were false. | Court: No — plaintiff failed to show a phony reason known to decisionmakers or intentional falsehood by the actual decisionmakers. |
| Did Mourning suffer FMLA retaliation? | Mourning alleges she was fired in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. | Defendant asserts termination was due to performance/unprofessional conduct, unrelated to FMLA leave. | Court: No — record lacks evidence connecting her FMLA leave to the termination or animus toward her leave. |
| Is the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework displaced by Ortiz? | Mourning relies on McDonnell-Douglas prima facie showing; cites comparator evidence. | Defendant relies on legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and lack of evidence of causation. | Court: Ortiz clarified evidence should be assessed holistically, but Mourning still failed to produce evidence that a reasonable factfinder could find causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes prima facie burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir.) (direct vs. indirect evidence should be assessed holistically; ultimate question is whether evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to infer discrimination)
- Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir.) (to show pretext plaintiff must show employer’s reason was a phony reason)
- Hnin v. TOA (USA), LLC, 751 F.3d 499 (7th Cir.) (pretext requires that the false reason be attributable to the actual decisionmaker)
- Zayas v. Rockford Mem'l Hosp., 740 F.3d 1154 (7th Cir.) (comparator must be similarly situated and treated more favorably by same decisionmaker)
- Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc., 839 F.3d 556 (7th Cir.) (retaliation standard post-Ortiz; focus on whether evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to infer retaliatory motive)