Opinion ID: 796559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Humphries Presented a Claim of Retaliation Sufficient to Survive Summary Judgment

Text: 53 Turning to the merits of Humphries's retaliation claim under section 1981, we generally have applied the same prima facie requirements to discrimination claims brought under Title VII and section 1981. See, e.g., Alexander v. Wis. Dep't of Health & Family Servs., 263 F.3d 673, 682 (7th Cir.2001) (applying same standard to Title VII and section 1981 discrimination claims); Johnson v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind., 91 F.3d 922, 940 (7th Cir.1996) (Although section 1981 and Title VII differ in the types of discrimination they proscribe, the methods of proof and elements of the case are essentially identical.); Randle v. LaSalle Telecomms., Inc., 876 F.2d 563, 568 (7th Cir.1989) (It is well settled that the methods and order of proof applicable to a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII are equally availing under § 1981.); see also Patterson, 491 U.S. at 186, 109 S.Ct. 2363 (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to section 1981 claims). We see no reason to apply different requirements between the statutes with regard to retaliation claims. See Foley, 355 F.3d at 340 n. 8 (approving of the same standard applied to retaliation claims under Title VII and section 1981); see also Hasan v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 400 F.3d 1001, 1003-04 (7th Cir.2005) (applying Title VII prima facie requirements to retaliation cases brought under the Energy Reorganization Act); Larimer v. I.B.M. Corp., 370 F.3d 698, 702 (7th Cir.2004) (applying Title VII prima facie requirements to retaliation claim under ERISA). 54 To overcome Cracker Barrel's motion for summary judgment, Humphries may proceed under either the direct or indirect methods. See Sitar v. Ind. Dep't of Transp., 344 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Stone v. City of Indianapolis Pub. Util. Div., 281 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2002)). Under the direct method, Humphries must present direct evidence of (1) a statutorily protected activity; (2) a materially adverse action taken by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two. Id.; Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2415, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). Under the indirect method, he must show that after opposing the employer's discriminatory practice only he, and not any similarly situated employee who did not complain of discrimination, was subjected to a materially adverse action even though he was performing his job in a satisfactory manner. See Sylvester v. SOS Children's Villages Ill., Inc., 453 F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir.2006); White, 126 S.Ct. at 2415. Thus, the indirect method of establishing a prima facie case requires proof both of similarly situated employees and of the plaintiff's performing his job satisfactorily. Sylvester, 453 F.3d at 902. 55 Under the district court's view (which, naturally, Cracker Barrel echoes on appeal), Humphries's prima facie case failed because, among other reasons, he did not present sufficient evidence to meet the similarly situated requirement under the indirect method. 13 According to Cracker Barrel, similarly situated comparators must have the same supervisors, the same job duties, the same work performance histories, and must have engaged in the same bad conduct as the plaintiff. In other words, they must be essentially identical to the plaintiff, and, under Cracker Barrel's view, Humphries's two comparators, Stinnett and Dowd, fail that test. 56 Cracker Barrel's view of our similarly situated requirement is too rigid and inflexible. This requirement should not be applied mechanically or inflexibly. Hull v. Stoughton Trailers, LLC, 445 F.3d 949, 952 (7th Cir.2006). True, we have sometimes stated the similarly situated requirement in the must terms that Cracker Barrel argues, but a more sensitive reading of our cases indicates that we have often stated that the similarly situated requirement  normally entails a showing that the two employees dealt with the same supervisor, were subject to the same standards, and had engaged in similar conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them. Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 219 F.3d 612, 617-18 (7th Cir.2000) (emphasis added); see also Keri v. Bd. of Trs. of Purdue Univ., 458 F.3d 620, 644 (7th Cir.2006); Ezell v. Potter, 400 F.3d 1041, 1049-50 (7th Cir.2005); McDonald v. Vill. of Winnetka, 371 F.3d 992, 1002 (7th Cir. 2004); Lucas v. Chi. Transit Auth., 367 F.3d 714, 733 (7th Cir.2004); Appelbaum v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 340 F.3d 573, 580 (7th Cir.2003); Peters v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 307 F.3d 535, 546 (7th Cir.2002); Snipes v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 291 F.3d 460, 463 (7th Cir. 2002); Peele v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 319, 330 (7th Cir.2002). In other words, we have emphasized that the similarly situated inquiry is a flexible one that considers all relevant factors, the number of which depends on the context of the case. Radue, 219 F.3d at 617. As to the relevant factors, an employee need not show complete identity in comparing himself to the better treated employee, but he must show substantial similarity. Id. at 618; see also Goodwin v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 442 F.3d 611, 619 (7th Cir. 2006); Ezell, 400 F.3d at 1050. 57 In addition, our case law does not provide any magic formula for determining whether someone is similarly situated. Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 636 (7th Cir.2001) (discussing the similarly situated requirement in the equal protection context). Instead, courts should apply a common-sense factual inquiry—essentially, are there enough common features between the individuals to allow a meaningful comparison? Id. (citing Freeman v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 231 F.3d 374, 382-83 (7th Cir.2000) and Radue, 219 F.3d at 619). Put a different way, the purpose of the similarly situated requirement is to eliminate confounding variables, such as differing roles, performance histories, or decision-making personnel, which helps isolate the critical independent variable: complaints about discrimination. See Hull, 445 F.3d at 951-52. 58 It is important not to lose sight of the common-sense aspect of this inquiry. It is not an unyielding, inflexible requirement that requires near one-to-one mapping between employees—distinctions can always be found in particular job duties or performance histories or the nature of the alleged transgressions. See, e.g., Ezell, 400 F.3d at 1050. Now, it may be that the degree of similarity necessary may vary in accordance with the size of the potential comparator pool, as well as to the extent to which the plaintiff cherry-picks would-be comparators, see Crawford v. Ind. Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 461 F.3d 844, 845-46 (7th Cir.2006), but the fundamental issue remains whether such distinctions are so significant that they render the comparison effectively useless. In other words, the inquiry simply asks whether there are sufficient commonalities on the key variables between the plaintiff and the would-be comparator to allow the type of comparison that, taken together with the other prima facie evidence, would allow a jury to reach an inference of discrimination or retaliation—recall that the plaintiff need not prove anything at this stage. 59 Establishing a prima facie case should not be such an onerous requirement: the plaintiff's evidence on the prima facie case need not be overwhelming or even destined to prevail; rather, the plaintiff need present only `some evidence from which one can infer that the employer took adverse action against the plaintiff on the basis of a statutorily proscribed criterion.' Bellaver v. Quanex Corp., 200 F.3d 485, 493 (7th Cir.2000) (quoting Leffel v. Valley Fin. Servs., 113 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir.1997) (also noting that the prima facie burdens should not be applied rigidly)); see also Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous.). The prima facie case, and specifically its fourth prong, are meant to identify situations where the `actions taken by the employer, . . . if unexplained, are more likely than not based on consideration of impermissible factors.' Collier v. Budd Co., 66 F.3d 886, 890 (7th Cir.1995) (quoting Allen v. Diebold, Inc., 33 F.3d 674, 678 (6th Cir. 1994)). But the method of inquiry established by McDonnell Douglas was never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic. Furnco Const. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978). After all, our intention in establishing the similarly situated requirement was to provide plaintiffs the boost that the McDonnell Douglas framework intended. See Stone, 281 F.3d at 643. 60 With this legal and policy backdrop in mind, we now turn to the would-be comparators in this case. It is clear that Stinnett was a sufficient comparator. He held the same associate manager position as Humphries, with the same duties, including responsibility for ensuring the safe was locked at all times. He shared the same supervisor (Dowd) and same ultimate decisionmaker (Christensen). Like Humphries, Stinnett had received past negative performance evaluations, including low ratings on asset protection categories. In addition, Humphries presented competent testimony (both his own and that of a coworker) that Stinnett—like Humphries—had used a so-called Gold Card to pay for a meal that a customer had complained about, apparently in contravention of Cracker Barrel policy. In addition, Humphries presented evidence that Stinnett's termination of Green (the immediate precursor event connected to Humphries's termination) was impermissible (under Cracker Barrel policy, only general managers, not associate managers, can fire employees). If anything, the record tends to suggest that Humphries generally performed slightly better than Stinnett. In addition, Humphries presented evidence that Stinnett also left the safe unlocked. Specifically, Humphries testified that Stinnett (and Dowd) routinely left the safe unlocked—the very basis for which Humphries was fired, and one which Humphries hotly disputes. 61 Cracker Barrel seeks to distinguish Stinnett on the grounds that he left the safe unlocked during the daytime ( i.e., business hours) whereas Humphries left it unlocked during the nighttime ( i.e., overnight). This is a distinction without much difference. Although arguments can be made as to relative greater potential harm of leaving the safe unlocked at night, the issue remains that it was contrary to Cracker Barrel policy to leave the safe unlocked and unattended at any point during the 24-hour day. More importantly, Cracker Barrel's argument here reflects precisely the type of formalistic argument that should not carry the day at summary judgment. Humphries was not required to show an identity of wrongful conduct: the law is not this narrow. Ezell, 400 F.3d at 1050. It was enough to show similar—not identical—conduct and this surely qualifies under that standard. Id. To find otherwise is to lose sight of the big-picture, common-sense perspective. Thus, in terms of job titles, work duties, supervisor, and work performance histories, Stinnett and Humphries have more than sufficient similarity. A single comparator will do; numerosity is not required. 14 See, e.g., Goodwin, 442 F.3d at 619; Ezell, 400 F.3d at 1050. 62 Cracker Barrel also contends that it established that it had a legitimate reason for firing Humphries, and that Humphries failed to show that the reason that Cracker Barrel provided for his discharge was pretext (i.e., a lie). See Forrester v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 453 F.3d 416, 417-19 (7th Cir.2006) (discussing general requirements to establish pretext). On these issues, we agree with the district court's determination that the record is replete with contested material facts pertaining to Humphries's work performance and the nature of Christensen's beliefs when he terminated Humphries. As an initial matter, Humphries contends that he did not leave the safe unattended, and the evidence implicating him is comprised solely of the testimony from Stinnett—the very individual Humphries targeted in his final complaint of discrimination. And there is testimony in the record that a co-worker observed Stinnett and Dowd acting differently (less deferentially) toward Humphries just prior to his firing, and that this co-worker specifically warned Humphries about Stinnett and Dowd because she believed that their behavior indicated that they were up to something to harm Humphries. In addition, prior to firing Humphries, it appears that Christensen conducted no investigation into the veracity of Stinnett's claim. He did not interview Humphries; he simply credited Stinnett's story. Finally, the timing of Humphries's firing is suspicious: he was fired one week after he complained to Christensen about discriminatory practices and one day prior to a scheduled meeting with Dowd, which, presumably would have created a more elaborate (and less favorable to Cracker Barrel) documentary record of Humphries's complaints. Finally, there was evidence in the record tending to show that similar transgressions were not sufficient to fire other similarly situated employees who did not complain of discrimination. See generally Curry v. Menard, Inc., 270 F.3d 473, 479 (7th Cir.2001) (holding that a showing that similarly situated employees were treated differently may be enough to establish pretext). 63 This is not to say that merely pointing to an employer's shoddy investigatory efforts is sufficient to establish pretext. Erroneous (but believed) reasons for terminating an employee are not tantamount to pretextual reasons. See Forrester, 453 F.3d at 419; Little v. Ill. Dep't of Revenue, 369 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (7th Cir.2004). But, under the circumstances here, there was sufficient other circumstantial evidence in the record to support a reasonable inference that Humphries was set-up by Stinnett (in tandem with Dowd and Christensen), see Sylvester, 453 F.3d at 905, and that his purported bad act of leaving the safe unlocked was a fabrication to justify his firing. In this sense, the quality of Christensen's investigation may have some bearing on the truthfulness of Cracker Barrel's proffered reasons for terminating Humphries. In short, these are the sort of disputed factual issues that a jury should sort out. 64 As a final note, on remand, Humphries will have only his claim of retaliation. We agree with the district court's determination that he waived (forfeited would be the better term) his discrimination claim by devoting only a skeletal argument in response to Cracker Barrel's motion for summary judgment. Although Humphries did attempt to incorporate his well-developed arguments pertaining to the retaliation claim, and there is substantial overlap with regard to the prima facie requirements between the two claims, he did nothing more. On appeal, however, Humphries addresses for the first time the issue of his replacement, and Cracker Barrel outlines a series of arguments as to why Humphries's reprimands and warnings do not constitute materially adverse employment actions. None of these arguments were reached by the district court nor flushed out in the briefing—this is precisely why we insist on parties raising all pertinent arguments below. Given that Humphries's core claim is one for retaliation, there is little inequity in applying our typical forfeiture rule to this particular claim.