The defendant explained that the plaintiff was fired for poor job performance, and record showed that the plaintiff was not performing her job according to the defendant's legitimate expectations, where: (1) the defendant had received numerous complaints about the plaintiff's confrontational management style; (2) the complaints had been confirmed by an independent consulting firm, which ultimately recommended that the plaintiff be fired; and (3) the plaintiff had resisted the defendant's efforts to improve her job performance. The fact that the plaintiff's year-end evaluation indicated satisfactory performance in certain areas or that the plaintiff received the district-wide 3 percent cost of living raise did not require different result.
A school principal brought a Title VII action against her employer alleging that defendant's opting out of the third-year of her contract was motivated by her race and was in retaliation for making complaints of race discrimination. Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School Dist., No. 15-3805 (7th Cir., June 19, 2017). The school moved for summary judgment and the District Court granted it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The defendant explained that the plaintiff was fired for poor job performance, and record showed that the plaintiff was not performing her job according to the defendant's legitimate expectations, where: (1) the defendant had received numerous complaints about the plaintiff's confrontational management style; (2) the complaints had been confirmed by an independent consulting firm, which ultimately recommended that the plaintiff be fired; and (3) the plaintiff had resisted the defendant's efforts to improve her job performance. The fact that the plaintiff's year-end evaluation indicated satisfactory performance in certain areas or that the plaintiff received the district-wide 3 percent cost of living raise did not require different result.
0 Comments
Employee sued for retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for being fired the day she returned to work from FMLA leave. Tibbs v. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, No. 16-1671 (7th Cir. June 19, 2017). The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The District court held that the defendant never employed the plaintiff and thus could not have fired her, and that in any event, there is no evidence of retaliation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff could not point to evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that any of her supervisors harbored retaliatory animus against her. Thus, the court did not resolve the question whether the defendant employed the plaintiff. More specifically, the defendant explained that the plaintiff had been fired because of workplace misconduct, and the record showed that, prior to taking FMLA leave, the plaintiff had been accused of insubordination. Moreover, the record showed that the plaintiff had ignored a scheduled meeting with her supervisor to discuss the allegations of misconduct and did not otherwise address said allegations of misconduct against her. Also, while timing of plaintiff's termination was suspicious, the plaintiff failed to present evidence to show that accusation of poor job performance was baseless. Plaintiff Wynn worked as a contract employee for the defendant (the Illinois Department of Human Services) for 13 years, and then his contract was not renewed. Wynn v. The Illinois Department of Human Services, 2017 IL App (1st) 160344 (May 23, 2017). The plaintiff sued under the whistleblower provision of State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, alleging that the Department fired him in retaliation for reporting an improper expenditure to an auditor. After a 1-day bench trial, the court found and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The Appellate Court held that the judgment was not against manifest weight of evidence. The Appellate Court reasoned that the Department had retaliated against Wynn under Ethics Act's definition of "retaliation", which includes change in terms or conditions of employment. Further, the Ethics Act covers contract employees. Finally, as nonrenewal of a contract is an "adverse employment action" under Title VII, nonrenewal is a retaliatory action. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. Plaintiff sued under ERISA, alleging that the defendant-disability benefit plan was unreasonable in revoking her disability benefit after a plan administrator found that the plaintiff's fibromyalgia was not a disabling condition. Kennedy v. The Lilly Extended Disability Plan, No. 16-2314 (May 18, 2017). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The Seventh Circuit held that the terms of the plan defined disability as the inability to engage for profit any occupation commensurate with plaintiff's education, training and experience, and plaintiff's medical evidence satisfied that definition as the plaintiff's doctors established that she experienced pain and fatigue that precluded her from working regular schedule. Moreover, the plan's doctors who found the plaintiff was not disabled either spent only token amount of time examining the plaintiff or rendered opinions that were not considered by defendant. Also, the defendant failed to indicate what job or kind of job the plaintiff would be capable of performing if it had canceled plaintiff's benefits. |
As a Chicago employment lawyer, the firm focus primarily on employment law. Archives
June 2017
Categories
All
|