In the unerlying action, Plaintiff Malin sued Hospira for failing to promote her and demoting her in a reorganization thus retaliating against her in violation of Title VII and the FMLA.
Malin argued that complained about sexual harassment in 2003 and was then demoted in a 2006 reorganization. The Seventh Circuit focused on whether there was a causal connection between the complaint and demotion, holding that there was. The Court noted that "the mere passage of time is not legally conclusive proof against retaliation" and noted that the employer had repeatedly retaliated against Malin from 2003 through 2006.
Malin requested FMLA leave on June 19, 2006, and the reorganization was announced on July 12, 2006. The Court held that a "single event can have multiple but-for causes, so Malin’s FMLA leave request and her sexual harassment complaint could both have been but-for causes of Hospira’s allegedly retaliatory conduct." Further, a reasonable jury could find that Hospira retaliated against Malin for requesting FMLA leave.
Finally, the Court noted its "disappointment" with Hospira's summary judgement motion, which "misrepresented the record" and "cherry-picked" phrases from plaintiffs deposition, when no admissions existed. The Court warned about the additional costs and risks of sanctions for "engaging in these shenanigans" under 28 USC § 1927.