The H onorab le Ed m ond E. Ch ang, U nit ed Stat es D ist ri ct  Cour tf or the N or the rnD i s t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 11

- 2890 M AR I ON G ORDO N , P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. F ED E X F R EI GHT, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 09-4065

—Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e, Judg e.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 9, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 22, 2012

Befo re F L A U M an d K ANN E , C i r c uit Ju dg es , a nd C HAN G, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  K ANN E , Ci r c u i tJ udg e . M ar i o n Go r do n s uffer ed ano nthe-j ob i nj ury at one ofFe dE x’s se rv i ce center s o n October 14, 2008. T he f oll ow ing d a y , tw o Fed E x m an agers m ad e the de c isi on to term inate G ord on’s p ositi on as pa rt2 N o. 11

- 2890 ofa nati onalr educti on in f or ce. G or d on w as i nfo rm ed of th is deci si on upon herr etur n fro m m edi call eave o n N ove m ber11 , 20 08. Fol l owing her ter m i nati on, Gordon fi l ed a w or ker s’ co m pensati on cl ai m o n Decem ber15 , 20 08
. In July 200 9, Go r do n s ue d F edEx f o r t er m i na ting her i n retal i ati on f orexer ci si ng herworke rs ’ co m pensati on r i ghts. Find i ng no genui ne issu e o fm ate ri alf act, the di str i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t in f avo r o fF e d E x . We a ffi r m.
I. B ACK GR OUN D Gordon w or ked as an Over, Shor t, and D am age d ( “OS &D” ) c l e r ka tF e dEx ’ s Ea s tMo l i ne , I l l i no i s , s e r vi ce cente r fro m S ept em ber4, 20 06, thr ough herte rm i nati on on N ove m ber11 , 20 08. On October 14 , 20 08, Gordon tr i pped an d fel la t t he f ac i l i ty, i nj ur i nghe r wri st . S he re port ed heri nj ury to FedEx reg i onalm anage r, J effFi rs t. A Fe d E x em p loy ee tra n sp or te d G or d on to th e h os p ita l, w here ho s pi t a l s t a ff di a g no s e d Go r do n’ s i nj ur y a s a “br uis e” and dischar ged herwith he r ar m i n a s l i ng. Jeff M al l onee , m anage r ofthe East M ol i ne f aci l i ty, pick ed Gordon up fro m the hospi talto ta ke her backto the s er vi ce c enter . A ccor ding to Gordon’ s deposi ti on tes ti m ony, M al l on ee tol d her “yo u’r e g oi ng to be offf or a lon g t im e.” A lth ou gh G or d on a g re ed th at sh e p ro b ab ly w oul d not be atwo rk the next day, she tol d M al l onee that she doubte d she would be offa l ong ti m e. Thats a me da y, Mal l o ne e di r e c t e d C a r o l y n M c Da ni e l, an op erations su p ervisor, t o c om p lete an acc iden t rep ort on Gor don’s i nj ury.N o. 11

- 2890 3 The f o l l o wi ngmor ni ng, G ordo n c al l ed M al l o ne e atthe se r v i c e c e n t e r a n d i n f o r me d h i m s h e wo u l d b e s e ek i ng add i ti onaltr eat m ent fro m herf am i l y doct orbec ause her w ri st w as not i m proving. That a fternoon, M al l onee m et w i th Fi rs t and FedEx m anaging di re cto r, Butch D avis, to d iscus s d ow ns izi ng at the E ast M oline cen ter. A t the t i me, F e dEx wa s i mpl e men t i nga n a t i o nwi de re duc t i o n i n f o r c e whi c h r e s ul t e d i n the e l i mi na t i o n of m ult i ple posi ti ons acr oss the countr y. Davi s di rected F i r st an d M al l o ne e to dev el o p a pl an f o r el i m i na ting one full

- ti m e pos i ti on in East M ol i ne. Thr ee e m pl o y ee s w o r k ed ful l

- ti m e atthe Ea stM o l i ne ser vi ce cen ter : two oper ati ons supervi sor s ( M cDanie l and Ja son Clar k) and o ne OS& D cl er k ( Gordon)
. M al l onee ser ved as the ser vi ce c en te r m anage r at both the East M olin e a n d B loo m in gt on fac ilitie s, w h ich are ap p ro x im at ely 12 0 m iles a p a r t. Firs t a n d M allo n ee d ec id ed it was ne ce ss ar y t o ha ve t wo o th ers upe r vi so r s atthe East M ol i ne f aci l i ty, wh i ch w as open fro m 4: 00 a. m . to 10:00 p.m
. , on d ays w he n M a llo n ee w as abs en t. “[W ]e w anted to have a supervi soro n site t o open the f aci l i ty i n the mor ni nga nd t o c l o se th e fac i l i tya t ni g hta nd, due to th e long hours the f aci l i ty w as open, o ne super vi sor c ou ld n otp er for m bo th th es e t as ks .” (Fir st D ec l. at 2.) Fi rs t a nd M al l onee bel i eve d M cDanie l, wh o had pr ev i o us l y pe r f o r m ed OS &D duti es , c o ul d c ar r y o ut G ord on’s d ut ie s i n conj un ction w ith he r sup ervisory resp ons ibi li ties. A ccord ingly, Fi rst an d M all one e d etermi ne d tha tthe O S &D c l e r kp o s i t i o n wa s the mo s ta ppropri ate posi ti on fo r el i m i nati on be cause thi s m ove w oul d prese rv e the num bero fsuperv i sor s a t the f aci l i ty.4 N o. 11

- 2890

G or d on ’ s com p l ain t also alleg ed v iola tion s of the Fa m ily 1 and M edical Leav e A ct , 2 9 U .S. C. § 2601 etseq . , butGordon d oe s no t con test sum m ary jud g m en t on these cla im s. Shortly after her inj ury, Gor d on’s fam il y d octor d eterm i ned that her w ri st w as bro ken i n tw o or three p l aces an d r equi r ed su rge r y . Thu s, the de ci si o n t o e l i m i na te the OS& D cl er k posi ti on w as not i m ple m ented unti lG or don re turned from m edi call eave . W hen Gordon r etur ned to w or k on N ove m ber11 , 20 08, she m et w i th M al l onee an d the h um an resourc es m an ager to discu ss he r term i nati on, e ffecti ve that day. Gordon’ s duti es w er e abso rb ed by M c D an iel u n til M c D an iel re sig n ed in Ju ly 2009 , atwh i ch ti m e a f or m erpart
- ti m e em plo yee to ok ove r the OS&D duti es. Gordon fi l ed herworke rs ’ co m pensati on cl ai m o n D ecem ber 1 5 , 2 0 08. She d id n ot take an y step s tow ard fi l i ng a wo r k e r s ’ c o mpe ns a t i o n c l a i m p r i o r t o thi s date and ne ver disc ussed fi l i ng a w or kers’ com pensati on cl ai m with a nyone at FedEx. On Ju ly 23, 20 09, Gordon f i l e d s ui tf o r wr o ng fult e r mi na t i o n i n s t a t e c o urt, al l eging tha t F edE x reta liate d against he r because s h e e x e r c i s e d h e r r i g ht s und e r th e I l l i n o i s Wo r k e r s ’ C o mpensati on Act ( “I W CA ”)
. Fe dE x rem ove d the ca se to 1 federa lco urt. On J uly20 , 20 11, the dist rict co urt gr anted su m m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fF edEx
.
II. A NA LYSIS W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , dr awi nga l lr ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s an dN o. 11

- 2890 5 vie w in g a ll fac ts in fa vo r of th e n on - m o v in g p ar ty . M a rr v. B an k of

Am. , N. A. , 662 F.3d 963 , 966 (7th C ir. 2011). S um m ar y j udg m en t i s appr op riate o nl y i f“ th er e i s no g enui ne di spu te a s to a ny mate r i alf ac t an d the mova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a)
. To s ur vi ve s um m ar y j udg m en t, the no nm oving p ar ty m ust e stabl i sh so m e g enui ne i ssue f or tr i alsuch that a r eas onabl e j ury coul d return a ver dict i n h er fav or . M akows kiv. SmithAm unds e n L LC, 66 2 F
. 3d 818, 822 (7th C ir. 2011) ( quo ti ng A nders on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U
. S. 242, 248 (1986 ))
. “Genera l l y, an a t- w i l lem plo yee m ay be di scharged f orany re aso n orf or n o rea son at al l
. ” Roge rv. Ye l l ow Fre ight Sys
. , Inc. , 21 F. 3d 146, 14 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)
. I n I l l i noi s, h ow ev er , i t is u n law fu l to t er m in at e a n em p loy ee in re ta liat ion for e x er c isin g h er righ ts u n d er th e I W C A
. See Palm at e e rv. Int ’ l Har ve s t e rCo. , 42 1 N .E .2d 876, 87 8- 79 (I ll
. 1 981) ( cit ing Kels ay v. M otorola, Inc. , 384 N .E .2d 35 3 (Ill. 1978 ) )
. To m ai ntai n a cl ai m f or re tal i atory di schar ge, an em ploye e m ust pro ve: “( 1) hi s s tatus as an e m plo yee of th e defen dan t be f o r e i nj ur y ; ( 2) hi s ex er ci se o fa r i g ht g r an ted by th e W orkers’ C om p en sation A ct; an d (3) a ca us al r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n h i s di sc ha r g e an d the exerc ise o fhi s r i ght. ” R o ger, 21 F. 3d at 149. Fe dE x does no td i s p u t e th a ti tt e r mi n a t e d G o r d o n ’ s e mpl o y m en t and that s he was an e m plo yee before h er inj ury. Thus, the onl y i ssues ar e whether Gordon can est abl i sh that she e xerci sed a ri ght guaran te ed by the I W CA and that a ca usalr el ation sh i p exi sts betw een he r exer ci se of th i s r i g hta nd he r t er m i na ti o n.6 N o. 11

- 2890 A. Exe r cis eof

a Righ t I l l i n o i s l a w r e c o g n i z e s s e v e r a l wa y s i n wh i c h a n e mplo yee m ay exerc ise a ri ght under the I W CA
. Fi rs t, an em plo yee m ay fi l e a worke rs ’ co m pensati on cl ai m . See Kel s ay, 38 4 N
. E. 2d at 35 6. H er e, al th o ug h Gor don e ve ntuall y fi le d a w orkers’ com p en sation claim , and thu s exe rc ise d a rig h t u n d er th e I W C A , sh e d id n otfile h er cla im pr i o r t o h e r t e r mi na t i o n. T he r e f o r e , de s pi t e de po s i t i on tes tim on y to the c ontr ar y, the f i l i ngof h er cla im co u ld no t ha ve b ee n the c au se o fhe r t er m i natio n a nd thi s ex er ci se ofa ri ght doe s n ot l ogi cal l y s up portherr eta l i ato r y di sc ha r g e ca us e o fa ct i o n. B u te v e n i fth e r e h a s be e n n o fi l i n go fa c l a i m, I l l i noi s co urts r eco gn ize that the l i m i ted to rto fr eta l i at o r y di s c ha r g e ma y a pp l y wh e re a p l a i nt i ffi s p r e e mptiv el y f ire d to p re ve n t s u c h a filin g. SeeRichardson v. Ill
. B ell Te l
. Co. , 5 10 N. E. 2d 13 4, 1 36

- 37( I l l
. App. Ct
. 1 98 7)
. “Factual supp or t that the em plo yer w as i nfo rm ed or in som e way f oun d out about the pl ai nti ff’ s intent to p urs ue rel iefun d er the A ct is essen tial t o a retali atory d isc h ar ge acti on. ” R o ger, 2 1 F
. 3d at1 49

- 50
. The d ist ric t c ou rth eld th at G or d on d id n otm ee t th is burden bec ause, att h e t i m e F edE x m ade the deci si on to ter m i na te Gordon, no one knew the exte nt o fher inj uri es and G or don expected to be backto work w ith in a day ortwo. In additi on, Gordon n ev er exp re sse d an i ntent to file a w or ker s’ co m pensati on cl ai m and had not fil ed one p r e viously. A lthou gh the d istri ct cou rt re lied on th es e fa c ts in g ra n tin g s u m m a r y jud gm en t in f avo r of FedEx, w e need not add re ss thi s i ssue fu rt h erN o. 11

- 2890 7 because Gordon’ s cl ai m cl ear l y s ati sfi es a t hi rd approa ch re cogni zed byI l l i noi s co urts . U nd erthi s thi rd approa ch, an e m plo yee e x er ci ses a r i g htunde r the I W CA mer ely b y r equestinga nd s ee k i ng m ed ica l at te n tio n . Se eH i nthor n v . Rol and’s o f Blo om i ngton, Inc. , 5 19 N
. E
. 2d 90 9 ( I l l
. 1 98 8)
. In H inth o rn , the I lli nois Sup rem e C ou rt held that “the overriding p urpose ofthe [ I W CA ] i s t o p rotec t inj ured em plo yee s by ensuring the ava i l abi l i ty ofm edi caltr eatm ent, by sh i f t i n gth e fi n a n c i a lb u r d e n o fs u c h t r e a t me n tt o t he em plo yer . ” Id. at91 3. “R equesting and se eking m edi cal at te nt i o n . . . i s o nl y the c r uci alfi r sts te p i n e xe rcis i ng ri ghts und er the W or ker s’ Com pensati on Act. ” Id. Thus, ane m p loyee who was t o l d t o s ee ko th ere m pl o y m en t aftershe i nfo rm ed the v ice presi dent ofthe com pany of her backi njur y and i ntent to see k m edi calat tenti on had a c laim for re ta liat or y d isc h ar ge . Id. at91 0- 13. A fterGordon s ustained her i nj ury, she re port ed to F i rst an d r eque st ed to g o t o the ho spi ta l
. The f o l l o wi ng day, Gordon cal l ed the ser vi ce cente r an d i nfo rm ed M al l onee th at she w oul d be s eek i ng addit i onalm edi cal att enti on fro m herf am i l y doctor
. In l i ght o fthes e f acts, Fi rs t a nd M al l on ee were sure l y a w ar e that Gor don was a ct i ve l y r eque st i nga nd s ee k i ngmedi ca la tt en ti o n. U nd er H inth o rn , Go r d on has m ethe r b ur deno fde m o ns t r a t i ngthe exe r c i s e o fa r i g htu nd e r the I W CA. Ac c o r di ngl y, w e m ust deter m i ne w hether Gordon can establ i sh a ca usalr el ati onshi p between herpro tect ed acti vi ty an d t er m i na ti o n.8 N o. 11

- 2890 B
. Causal Relati onship I n re sol vi ng r eta l i ato rydi schar ge cl ai m s, I l l i n oi s doe s no ta pp l y the M cD onn e l l D ougl as burden- shi fti ng fra m ew or k c om m on ly a p p lied in fe d er al re ta liat ion ca se s. See M cD o n nell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 411 U
. S. 792 (1973); O ’Lea ry v . Accre ti ve Health, Inc. , 65 7 F
. 3d 625, 63 0- 31 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 )
. Ins t e a d, t o e s t abl i sh a c a us a lr e l a t i o ns hi p, Gordon “m ust a ffi rm ati vel y s how thatthe d ischarge w as p rim aril y i n retalia t ion for [her] exercise of a prot ecte d righ t.” R o ger, 21 F. 3d at 149. To do so, Gordon m ust“ pr o ffe r [ ] s uffi c i e nte v i de nc e fr o m whi c h a r easonab l e j ury coul d i nfe r that the e m plo yerwas i m proper l y m oti vate d.” Id. OnlyafterGordon has m et thi s bur den i s F ed Ex r equi re d to provi de a l egi ti m ate re a s on for its d ec isio n to te rm in at e h er . Se ei d. “ [ T] he ult i m ate iss u e to be deci ded i s the em plo yer ’ s m oti ve i n dis cha rg in g the e m plo yee . ” Har t l e i n v . Il l
. PowerCo. , 601 N
. E
. 2d 720, 730 (I ll
. 1992). Gor do n put s f o r ththe f o l l o wi nge vi den ce f o r fi ndi ng a ca usall i nk be tw een he r ter m i nati on a nd herr i ght t o seek m ed ical atten tion: (1 ) th e plan prior to Gord on’s i nj ury w as to el i m i nate a s up er vi sorp osi ti on; ( 2) the day afterheri nj ury, Fi rs t a nd M al l onee change d the pl an to el i m i nate Gordon’ s pos i ti on instea d; and (3 ) despi te “el i m i nati ng” Gor don’s posi ti on, herduti es w er e passed on t o a s up er vi sorand l ate r to a par t- ti m e e m plo yee who t o o ko v e r Go r do n’ s p r i o r p o s i t i o n. Go r do n a s s er ts th atwe sh ou l d a l so c o ns i derthe tem pora lpro xi m i ty of th e ev en ts i n que st i o n. Gordon’ s a sse rt i on that, pri orto heri nj ury, the pla n was to eli m i na te a s upe r vi so r po si ti o n i s ba se d o n aN o. 11

- 2890 9

ru m or sh e h ea rd from M c D an iel. M c D an iel ac kn ow le dg e s tha ts he h e a r d thi s rumo r fr o m s o meo ne o ut s i de the EastM ol i ne f aci l i ty and s h e c oul d not r em em ber w ho g ave her the info rm ati on. Sh e fu rther sta ted i n her deposi ti on that “ Idon’ t know thattheyknew that f or a fact. T he y j us t told m e tha t tha t’s w ha t t he y w ere to ld .” (M c D an iel D e p . a t 2 8.) Fe d E x arg u es th at th is al l ege d “rum or ” i s inadm i ssibl e hea rs ay, and w e a gr ee. U nd erthe Feder al R u les ofEvi dence, hear sayi s defi ned as an o ut- of-c ou rt st ate m ent o ffer ed by a par ty “to pr o v e the t r uth o fthe mat t e r a s s e r t e d. ” F e d. R
. Ev i d. 801( c) ( 2)
. S uch stat em ents, unl ess theys atis fy o ne o f the m any e x c ep ti ons to the rule , ar e inadm i ssibl e a t tr i aland m ay not be use d to c re at e a genui ne i ssue of m at er ial fa c t a t t h e s u m m ar y jud gm en t s ta ge . See F ed. R. E vid . 802 ; Carl i s l ev . D eere& Co. , 57 6 F
. 3d 649, 65 5 ( 7th Cir
. 20 09)
. H er e, bec ause the ru m or i s be i ng o ffer ed f or th e truth of th e m at te r a ss er te d a nd do es no t m ee t o ne of the he ar sayexce pti ons, i t i s inadm i ssibl e. A ccor dingl y, Gordon cannotr el y o n thi s e vi de n ce in ar gui ng tha t th e o rig in a l p lan w as to te rm in at e a su p er vis or p os iti on a nd thatthi s pl an change d fo l l owing her i nj ury. G or don’s st ro ngestar gum ent i s that a j ury coul d i nfe r an i m properm oti ve gi ven the sho rtti m e s pan between h er inju ry an d Fe d E x ’s d ec isio n to elim in at e h er p os iti o n. Te m p oral pr o xi m i tyo fte n s er ve s as a n “ i m po r ta nt evi denti ar y a l l y o fthe pla i n tiff.” D a vis v . Tim e Wa rner Ca b l eof Se
. Wi s . , L
. P. , 651 F.3d 664 , 675 (7th C ir. 2011). B u t te m pora lpro xi m i ty al one i s g ener al l y no t e nough to cre ate a genui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf ac t. See Si l ve r m an v. Bd. of Educ
. of

Chi cago , 637 F.3d 729 , 736 (7 t h C ir
. 2011);10 N o. 11

- 2890 R o ger, 21 F .3d at14 9 (“ T h e c au s a l i ty req u ire m en t c alls f o r mor e tha n a s e qu e nt i a l c o nn e c t i o n. ” )
. I n thi s cas e, Gordon fel land sought m edi caltr eat m ent j ust o ne day pri orto Fi rs t a nd M al l onee ’ s decis ion to e l i m i nate her p os it ion
. Th is f act is certainly favorable to Gord on’s case but, o n i ts ow n, i s no t e nough f ora j ury to i nfe r tha tF e dEx wa s i mpr o pe r l y mo t i v a t e d. Gordon’ s fin alal l ega ti on o fi m properm oti vati on r est s on the f act that h er O S&D duti es w er e no t e l i m i nated but abs orbed by anotherem plo yee . Gordon l i kens her case to m i ni
- re du cti on- i n-for ce c ase s, wh i ch r equi re a pla i nti fft o d em onst ra te that “( 1) she i s a m em bero f a pro tect ed cla ss, ( 2) she w as perf or m i ng herj ob sat i sf acto ri l y, ( 3) she suffer ed a m ate ri al l y a dvers e e m plo ym ent a ction , a n d (4 ) herj ob du ti es w er e abso rbe d by em p loy ee s w h o w er e n otm em b er s o f h er p ro te c te d cla ss .” Joh al v. L i t t l e L ady F oo ds, Inc. , 43 4 F
. 3d 943, 94 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ); ac co r d Pe t t s v. Rock l e dgeFu r ni tureLL C, 53 4 F. 3d 71 5, 725 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. The bur den then shi fts to th e em p loyer to p rovide l egitim ate, non d iscrim inatory re asons fori ts acti ons, and the pla i nti ffm ay att em pt to show that s uch re aso ns ar e pr ete xtual
. Jo hal, 43 4 F
. 3d at9 46
. G o r do n a ckno wl edg es tha t th e bur den

- sh i fting fra m ew or k a pp l i ed i n m i ni
- re du cti on- i n-for ce c ase s does not apply he re , b ut bel i eve s s uch case s m ay be i nstr ucti ve. Bu t e ven in l i ght o fsuch ca ses , Fe dE x has pr ese nted leg itim at e, n on d isc rim in at or y re as on s fo r i t s a c tio n s. It i s undis pu ted thatFe d E x w as i m ple m enti ng st affr eductions na ti o nwi de th r o ug ho uti ts f ac i l i ti es . At theN o. 11

- 2890 11 East M o l i ne f a c i l i t y, F e dEx man a g em ent had t o el i m i nate a full

- ti m e pos i ti on. Fe dE x neverst ated that i t e l i m i nated Gor don’s posi ti on be cause her j ob du ti es w er e no l onge r necess ar y; r ather, Fe dE x h ad to el i m i nate an em plo yee posi ti on a s a co st- cutti ng m easu re. N ot w an tin g to redu ce th e nu m ber of sup ervis or s a t t h e fa c i l ity , an d be liev in g M c D an iel c ou ld hand l e OS&D duti es i n conj uncti on w i th hero w n re sponsibi l i ti es , F edEx e l i m i na te d the o nl y ful l

- ti m e no nsupervi sory pos i ti on, wh i ch happened to be Gordon’ s. FedEx has pres ented a “val i d basi s, w h i ch i s no t prete xtual, f ordi schar gi ng [ Gordon]
. ” H a rt le in , 60 1 N
. E.2 d at 728. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw , thi s i s e nough to d efeat G ord on’s claim
. A ccord in g ly, the d istri ct cou rt di d no t er r i n fi ndi ngtha t Gor do n di d no t pr es en t a g en u in e is su e o f m at er ial fa c t fo r tr ial.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Fo r th e for ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt .

3- 22- 12