The record showed that Defendants explained that the termination was based on the plaintiff's repeated failure to operate on patients having bouts of appendicitis in spite of management's directives to do so, and plaintiff failed to establish that defendants' explanation was unworthy of belief, as record showed that several of plaintiff's patients suffered because of plaintiff's failure to timely operate on their appendix. The fact that the plaintiff disputed the medical basis for management's directive did not create genuine factual dispute that could only be resolved by jury given existence of patients who suffered from plaintiff's delay or failure to operate at all. Plaintiff also failed to show that defendants treated similarly-situated surgeons more favorably after giving said surgeons specific instructions regarding course of patients' medical treatment.
Plaintiff sued in Title VII, alleging that defendants terminated her surgical privileges and denied her reappointment as surgeon at Cook County's Stroger Hospital because of her race, sex and national origin. Liu v. Cook County, No. 14-1775 (7th Cir., March 15, 2016). Defendants moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The record showed that Defendants explained that the termination was based on the plaintiff's repeated failure to operate on patients having bouts of appendicitis in spite of management's directives to do so, and plaintiff failed to establish that defendants' explanation was unworthy of belief, as record showed that several of plaintiff's patients suffered because of plaintiff's failure to timely operate on their appendix. The fact that the plaintiff disputed the medical basis for management's directive did not create genuine factual dispute that could only be resolved by jury given existence of patients who suffered from plaintiff's delay or failure to operate at all. Plaintiff also failed to show that defendants treated similarly-situated surgeons more favorably after giving said surgeons specific instructions regarding course of patients' medical treatment.
0 Comments
Formella, a white employee, brought a discrimination claim alleging that the USPS selected an African-American candidate for a preferred position because of his race. Formella v. Brennan and USPS, No. 15-1402 (7th Cir., March 10, 2016). The USPS moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court held that Formella failed to provide background circumstances to infer that the USPS had inclination to discriminate against white workers, especially where the relevant decision-maker was white. Moreover, the first prong of the McDonnell Douglas test that would merely require showing that plaintiff was member of protected racial class did not apply in instant "reverse discrimination" claim. Plaintiff further failed to show that similarly-situated member of different race received more favorable treatment, or that defendant's explanation for selection of successful candidate, i.e., that successful candidate scored better on interview questions, was unworthy of belief. Plaintiff additionally failed to establish viable retaliation claim, where only arguable adverse act involving forced use of sick time did not occur until 10 months after plaintiff had filed EEO complaint. The EEOC applied to enforce its administrative subpoenas against an employer (a temporary staffing agency), which it issued during the EEOC's investigation to assess the staffing agency's compliance with the ADEA. EEOC v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 15-1690 (7th Cir., March 4, 2016). The EEOC subpoena sought information regarding all clients' job requisition requests of the staffing agency, as well as information about all persons that the staffing agency referred for employment to the staffing agency's clients. The District Court granted the EEOC’s application. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court found that the EEOC could properly seek that information as: (1) the requested information was within scope of EEOC's authority to investigate potential employment discrimination; and (2) the subpoenas were properly aimed at any discriminatory requests that were not recorded in employer's database. The Seventh Circuit rejected the staffing agency's argument that disclosure was inappropriate because it would harm the staffing agency's business relationships with its clients Plaintiff sued under Title VII, claiming that she was laid off in January 2012 for filing a 2010 EEOC discrimination charge. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., No. 15-2795 (7th Cir., March 4, 2016). The employer moved for summary judgment and the District Court granted the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
NLRB found that an employer violated the NLRA by threatening employees with termination and actually firing one employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. Staffing Network Holdings, LLC v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 15-1354 & 15-1582 Cons. (7th Cir., March 2, 2016). The Seventh Circuit held that the record contained sufficient evidence to support NLRB's finding and therefore denied the employer's petition for review. More specifically, the record showed that: (1) a supervisor sent a worker (Juan) home after that worker was told to speed up production; (2) co-workers told that supervisor that sending Juan home was unfair; (3) the supervisor then sent home another co-worker (Barrera) who had expressed the belief that the supervisor was being unfair and threatened to send home others who had similarly expressed that supervisor was being unfair; and (4) the ALJ found that Barrera had been fired after being told not to return to work. The employer argued that no violation occurred because Barrera was not terminated as she was employed by staffing agency and could obtain work at other clients of the agency. However, the Seventh Circuit held that the ALJ could properly look to IDES document that had been filled out by the employer indicating that said worker had been "involuntarily" separated. The Seventh Circuit also held that the ALJ was not required to accept employer's version of incident, and that the employer failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances to set aside credibility determinations made by ALJ. Finally, and most significantly, the Seventh Circuit also held that a brief, on-the-job work stoppage by workers to address concerns about conditions of employment was entitled to protection under NLRA. Plaintiff, an administrator and FOIA officer sued Chicago State University for wrongful termination under the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act. Crowley v. Watson, 2016 Ill. App. (1st) 142847 (March 2, 2016). Crowley had received numerous FOIA requests regarding Dr. Watson and his authorization of expenditures during a period in which he was not a state employee. Watson badgered Crowley insisting that Crowley not respond to the requests fully, grabbing Crowley's wrist and threatening him. Crowley reported the incident to the Illinois Attorney General's Office. Crowley was later fired. At trial, the jury found for the plaintiff. Court doubled jury's verdict of back pay, and awarded attorney fees and prejudgment interest. The Appellate Court upheld the award of $2 million in punitive damages. It noted that the Illinois Supreme Court has specifically approved recovery of punitive damages for the related tort of retaliatory discharge, and the same legal sentiment applies to Plaintiff's conduct, which protected the public's right to know of inappropriate activities in expenditure of state funds. Further, the amount of punitive damages was reasonable given actions of malice and deceit and willful and wanton conduct by University president. |
As a Chicago employment lawyer, the firm focus primarily on employment law. Archives
June 2017
Categories
All
|