Warren Johnson v. Advocate Health and Hospitals, 892 F.3d 887

Five African‑American EVS (janitorial) employees sued Advocate under Title VII and §1981 alleging racial discrimination after Advocate contracted Aramark to manage EVS operations.
Plaintiffs alleged multiple theories: pay disparities, denied promotions, disparate discipline/terminations, harsher/less desirable assignments, and a racially hostile work environment arising from supervisors’ derogatory comments.
The district court granted summary judgment for Advocate on all claims, finding insufficient evidence of severe or pervasive harassment, no proper comparators for disparate‑treatment claims, and inadequate proof of employer liability.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on pay, promotion, termination, and assignment claims for lack of evidence showing similarly situated non‑black comparators.
The Seventh Circuit reversed only as to the hostile work environment claim: plaintiffs presented sworn testimony (including repeated uses of the N‑word and other racial epithets by supervisors, complaints made to HR, and company responses) creating a triable issue on severity/pervasiveness and on employer notice/response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pay disparity (Johnson, Smith, Pannell)	Identified white coworkers paid more or denied charge pay	Plaintiffs offered no evidence those coworkers were similarly situated; statements are hearsay/insufficient	Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to produce comparator evidence to create genuine dispute
Failure to promote	Plaintiffs were passed over for less‑qualified white applicants	Plaintiffs did not identify comparators’ qualifications, supervisors, or other relevant facts	Dismissed: no admissible evidence showing similarly situated comparators
Disparate termination/discipline	Terminations and stricter discipline were racially motivated	Plaintiffs produced only generalized, speculative testimony without comparator proof	Dismissed: no showing that non‑black employees with similar records were treated better
Hostile work environment (racial epithets/speech)	Supervisors repeatedly used racial slurs and derogatory stereotyping; complaints were made to HR; environment objectively and subjectively hostile	Conduct was isolated, sporadic, and not severe/pervasive enough to alter conditions of employment	Reversed in part: sufficient evidence of racially derogatory speech and employer notice/response issues to survive summary judgment; remanded for further proceedings on this claim

Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (test: whether evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to conclude protected trait caused adverse action)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework useful for organizing discrimination evidence)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden rules: nonmovant must show factual dispute on essential element)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Hrobowski v. Worthington Steel Co., 358 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2004) (racial epithets can render work environment objectively hostile)
Passananti v. Cook Cty., 689 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012) (offhand comments/isolated incidents generally not actionable)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (defines when an employee is a supervisor for vicarious liability for tangible employment actions)
Knight v. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 377 (7th Cir. 1991) (multi‑factor test to determine which entity is the employer for Title VII purposes)