## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1846 K EV I N L OUD ERMILK, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. B ES T P ALLET C OMPAN Y, LLC , a nd D AN L Y ONS, D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 08 C6869

—Philip G. Re inha rd, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 6, 2010

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 18, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hi e f Judg e, a nd W OO D a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R O OK, Chi e

f Judg e . Kevi n Loud er m i l k work ed at Best Pal l et Com pany, wh er e hi s princi pal t as k w as to disa sse m bl e pal l ets and sta ck the wood f orr euse. M ultip le em p loyees w orked sim ultan eou sly on a “teardow n m achi ne.” L aborer s a t o ne end br oke pal l ets i nto pie ces, wh i ch w er e pass ed to o ther s f orst acki ng. L ou d er m ilk c on te n d s t h at ea c h sid e o f th e m ac h in e in2 N o. 10

- 1846 the s tack i ng ar ea shoul d have h ad atl eas t t w o w or ker s, bu t tha t B est P all e t a ssigned i ts staff so that tw o or m ore H isp an ic w or ke rs w er e o n on e s id e, w h ile L ou d er m ilk (w h o is b lac k) w or ke d alon e o n th e o th er . H e c ou ld not kee p u p and w as cri ti ci zed f oral l owing boar ds to f al l, a nd whe n h e co m pl ai ne d abo utthe l ac ko fhe l p the H i spani c w or ker s hurl ed ra ci al epi thets

. H e c om pla i ned i n turn about these ta unts; m anage m ent di d nothi ng, Loud er m i l k s ays . ( A l l o fthi s o pini on’ s f actualn arrat i ve com es f ro m Louderm i lk’s al l ega ti ons and evi dence, w h ich w e m u st ac c ep t fo r c u rre n t p u rp os es .) D u r i n gA p r i l 2 0 0 6 L o u d e r mi l kl o d g e d s e v e r a l c o mpl ai nt s wi thmana g ement
. He b eg ant o t al kabo utfi l i ng a c h a r g e w i th th e E E O C

. O n A p r i l 2 5 h e t o o k s o me pi ctur es o fthe wor ka r ea, a p p ar en tl y t o s ho w the a g e n c y ( a n d , i fn e c e s s a r y , a c o u r t ) h o w th e t e ar - d o wn m ach ine w as set u p and w hy i t nee d ed tw o s tack ers on e ach si de. Dan L yo n s, a supervi sor, to l d him to st op ta ki ngpi ctur es . W he n Lo ude r m i l kr ei te r at ed hi s co nc e r n s a b ou t b ein g t re at ed d iffer en tly from th e H isp an ic w or ke rs , L yo n s t old h im : “P u t iti n w rit in g.” L ou d er m ilk did j ust that a nd handed L yons a n ote the next day. Lyo ns fi r e d hi m o n the s po t
. Lo ud e r mi l k the n fi l e d a ch ar g e o f di sc r i m i na ti o n wi th th e EEOC, whi chconcl ud ed that Best Pal l et probabl y had e n ga ged i n ra ci al discrim inati on a nd r eta l i ati on. Best Pal l et decl i ned to set tl e the char ge du ri ng the adm i ni str ati ve process, ho wev er, so th e EEOC se nt Lo ude r m i l k a right

- to
- su e l e t t e r, a nd h e s ue d. Tit l e VIIo fthe Civi l Ri ghts A ct o f19 64 f orbi ds re tal i ati on a gai nst a nyone w ho “ has o pp ose d any pract i ceN o. 10

- 1846 3

m ade an unl aw ful em plo ym ent pr acti c e bythi s s ubchapt e r, o r b e c a us e he ha s mad e a c ha r g e , t e s t i fi e d, as si st ed, o r pa r ti ci pated in any manne r in a n i nv es ti g at i o n, pr o c e e di ng, o r h e a r i ngu nd e r thi s sub c ha pt e r . ” 4 2 U. S

. C. §200 0e–3 ( a)

. S ee gener al l y Thom ps on v. Nor t h Am e r i ca n St ai nless, LP , N o. 09 –291 ( U
. S. J an. 24 , 20 11)

. A s the cas e co m es to us , Lo ude r m i l k ha s a sing l e cl ai m f o r rel ief : that Best Pal let fir ed hi m bec ause he “o pp ose d” i ts p r a c t i c e o ff a v o r i ng H i s p a n i c o v e r b l a c kwo r k e r s . He m ake s thi s co nten ti on under the “di re ct” m etho d, as opposed to the burden- shi fti ng “i nd i re ct” m et h od o f M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G r een , 4 11 U. S

. 7 92 ( 19 73 ) , a nd i ts succes sor s. T h e dist ri ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent f or defe nd ants, co ncl ud i ng tha t Lou d er m i l k l acks ev i dence th a th i s o p p o s i t i o n t o r a c i a l o r n a t i o na l

- o r i g i n d i s c r i mi nati on ca used hi s di schar ge. A s the cou rtsa w thi ngs, Lo ude r m i l k ’ s o nl y e vi den ce i s ti m i ng : he ha nded Ly o ns a no te an d was fi r ed. Ly o ns ha d no t r ea d the no te , s o he did not k n ow thati t co ntai ned a co m pla i nt abo ut r aci al disc ri m i n at ion. A nyw ay, the j ud ge thought, a tem pora l se que nc e do es no t sh o w ca us at i o n. P o st ho c erg o pro pter hoci s th e n am e ofa l og i calf al l acy, nota m eans to pr o ve c au sa ti o n. One pr o bl em wi ththi s appr o ac h i s th ati t ta k es de f en dants’ vi ew o fthe ev id en ce r atherthan Loud er m i l k’ s. Bes t Pal l et i nsi sts thatLyons did notr ead the note be f o r e fi r i ngLo ude r m i l k, b utLy o ns hi m se l fsa y s th athe d id rea d it (th ou gh L yo n s m ain ta in s t h at L ou d er m ilk del i ver ed the note so m e days bef or e be i ng fire d). W hen4 N o. 10

- 1846 rul i ng o n a m oti on f orsum m ary j ud gm ent, the party o pp o s i ng the mot i o n g e t s the b e ne fi t o f a l l f a c t s that a re as on ab le jur y m igh t fin d

. Ande rs on v. Li b e r ty L ob b y, Inc ., 47 7 U .S. 24 2 (1 98 6); Ce l ot e x Corp. v . Ca t r et t, 4 77 U
. S. 31 7 ( 19 86)

. A j ur y woul d b e en ti tl ed to b el i ev e th atLy o ns r ea d the no te
. I nd eed, a j ur y woul d b e en ti tl ed to fi nd that Lyons knew the conte nt o fthe not e w hetherhe r ead i to rn o t
. On l y the da y b e f o r e , Lo ud e r mi l kh a d ma de ano r al c om pl ai ntabo utr ac i aldi sc r i m i na ti o n, a nd Ly o ns ha d t o l d hi m t o “ [ p] ut it in wr i ting . ” W ha t di d Ly o ns th i nkwas i n the no te he recei ve d the ne xtda y ? An i nvi tat i on t o a bi rthd ay party ? Best Pal l et say s that i t fi re d Loud erm i l k no t be cause ofthe note ’ s co ntent, but beca u se h e had ta ken pi cture s of t h e w or k s ite , i n vio lat ion of co m p an y p olic y . B u t it did notgi ve that expla nati on t o Loud er m ilk

— orf orthat m att erthe EE OC

. Best Pallet to l d the ag ency that i t l et Loud er m i l k g o as part ofa re du cti on i n f or c e (though Loud er m i l k’ s nam e was noto n a l i st ofworke rs that ha d be en pr epa r ed f o r th at pur po se )

. I n co ur t it aba nd on ed th at ex p lan at ion an d co n te n d ed th at L ou d er m ilk h ad res ign ed , or th at h is d ep ar tu re w as a “ m u tu al d ec isi on. ” S i nc e Lo ude r m i l ks ay s th athe di d no t r es i g n, that expla nati on ca n’tpre vai l atthe su m m ar y j ud gm en t st ag e. Thi s l ed to the “ fi r ed f o r pho to g r aphy” co ntenti on, w h ich is prob l em ati c noto nl y b ecause the nopho t o g r a p h y p o l i c y ma y h a v e b e e n c o o k e d u p a ft e r the f act, but al so because i t co m es cl ose to c onc e di ngr et al i at i o n. I fthe r e a s o n tha tLo ud e r mi l ks na pp e d the p ho t o s was to b o l st erhi s cl ai m o fdi sc r i m inat i o n, the n f o rbi ddi ngN o. 10

- 1846 5 pi ctur e- ta k i ngl o o k s a l o t l ike an a tt empt t o b l o ckthe g athe r i ngo fe vi den ce dur i nga n i nv es ti g at i o n. W e don’ t s ay that §200 0e–3 ( a) al l ows w or ker s t o bre ak loc ks an d rifle m an ag er s’ d es k d ra w er s in se ar c h of ev idence; o ur poi nt i s that a “pol i cy” that m ay have b een devi sed to curt ai l a n in vest i gat i on i s no t the so rto f neutra l r ule thatwould adeq u at ely expla i n a di schar ge. T he Civil R ights A ct of 1964 d oes not requ ire e m p loyers to have “j ust cause” f orsa cking a w or ker, se e P o lla rd v . Rea M ag n e tWi r eCo

. , 824 F .2d 5 57 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87) , but an em plo yerwh o advances a fi shy r eas on t ake s t h e r i sk that disb el i efo fthe re aso n w i l l support an i nfe re nce that i t i s a pre text for d iscr i m i nati on. S ee Ree ve s v. Sa nde rs on Plumbi ng Pro duct s , Inc ., 53 0 U .S. 13 3, 14 6– 49 (20 00 ); St. M ary’s HonorCe nt e rv. H i cks , 509 U .S. 50 2 (1 99 3); Te xas D epar t m e ntof

Co m m un i ty Af

f ai rs v. Bur di ne, 45 0 U.S

. 24 8 (1981). The dis charg e’ s t i m i ng al so coul d supp ort an adver se i nfer en ce by a r ea so nabl e tr i er o f f ac t. S us pi ci o us tim i ng m ay be j ust that

— su spi ci o us

— and a suspi ci on is not enough t o get p as t a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. S ee Le wis v. Chi cago , 4 96 F
. 3d 64 5, 6 56 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. Oc ca si o nal l y , how ever, a n a dve r se a ct i o n c o m es s o c l o se o n the heel s o fa prot ecte d act that an infer ence ofcausa ti on i s se n sib le. Se e, e.g ., Cl a rk Co u n ty S c h o o l Di s t r i ctv. B reeden , 53 2 U.S

. 2 68, 27 3 ( 2001 ) ( “ver y c l ose ” t em pora l p ro x im ity ca n su ffice ); C a sna v. Lo ves P a rk, 574 F. 3d 420, 42 7 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); Spi eg la v . H ull , 37 1 F

. 3d 928, 94 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 04 ); M cCl e ndon v. Indi ana Sug a rs, Inc . , 10 8 F
. 3d 789, 796– 97 ( 7th Cir. 1 997). Deci ding w hen the i nfe re nce6 N o. 10

- 1846 i s appr o pr i at e ca nno t be res o l ve d b y a l eg alr ul e; the answ erdepend s o n conte xt, j ust a s a n eva l uati on o f con tex t is e s s e n tial to d eterm ine w he th er an em p loyer’ s expla nati on i s fi shy e nough to support an infe re nce that the r ealr eas on m ust be di scr i m i nator y. T h e di str i ct c o u r t ’ s a p p a r e n tb e l i e fth a tt i mi ng n e v ersupports an i n f e r e n c e o fc a u s a t i o n i s u n t e n a b l e . The c l o s e r t wo eve nts a re , the m or e l i kel y th at the fi rs t ca used the secon d . W e t h in k t h at an infe re n c e o f ca u sa tio n w ou ld be r e a s o nab l e h e r e . A j ur y , n o ta j ud g e , s ho ul d d e c i de w hetherthe i nfe re nce i s a pp ro pri ate
. Defe nd ants conte nd th at Loud er m i l k’ s co m pla i nts w er e t oo v ague, but §200 0e–3 ( a) does nothave a vagueness excepti on. The questi on i s whet h er the em plo yee opposed an unl aw ful em plo ym en t pr acti ce

— atl ea st, o ne th at th e e m p loy ee rea so n ab ly b elie ve d to be u n law fu l. Se e Fin e v. R ya n In terna t i o n a l A irlines , 30 5 F
. 3d 746, 75 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2002 )

. ( F r i v o l o us c o mpl a i nt s a r e n o tp r o t e c t e d. Se e M at t s on v. Cat e rpi l l ar, Inc . , 3 5 9 F.3d 885, 890 (7th Cir. 2004 )

. ) The evi dence i n thi s re cor d woul d a l l ow a r easonab l e per son i n Loud er m i l k’ s pos i ti on to c oncl ud e that Best Pal l et f avo re d H i spani c o ver b lack w or ker s with re sp ect to m ate ri alco nd i ti ons ofem plo ym ent, co nd oned a ra c ially h os tile w or kp l a c e , an d th u s v iola te d T itle VI I
. Louderm i l k’ s pro tes ts w er e pr ote cted. W hether Loud er m i l k was r ighti n h is bel iefdoe s not m atter. The j ud gm ent i s re ver sed, and the case i s re m anded for tria l.

2- 18- 11