Source: cases/29usc623/f-supp-3d-343-753-mcdaniel-v-progress-rail.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_343/0753_01/index.html
Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of ADEA discrimination.
There is simply no evidence to suggest his age played a role in these decisions.
Even if this Court assumes that Plaintiff's overtime opportunity complaint constituted a protected activity, the record shows no connection between this complaint and the cell phone suspension, termination, or sweeping assignment.
Without more facts to suggest that Howard was retaliating in response to Plaintiff's initial overtime complaint, or even the reassignment's temporal proximity to the initial overtime complaint, there is not enough evidence to support a retaliation claim.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/343/0753-01 name McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive cite 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) court United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois date 2018-11-01 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_343/0753_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl sha1=a93f9e24ac263475033a2aa2972dde106af79d42 chars=53160 opinion order : order by Blakey @0..53160 controlling law 29usc623 role applied posture civil; ADEA age discrimination and retaliation; employer motion for summary judgment granted by ND Ill result claimant-lost element employment-action : satisfied [conceded] route discharge pattern material handler discharged for a safety-rule (manual lifting) violation; termination undisputed fact @16554..16677 [supports] | On April 6, 2017, Progress Rail terminated Plaintiff and explained that he was being discharged for violating Shop Rule 31. gloss The court expressly leaves open whether the lesser discipline (one-day cell-phone suspension) was an adverse action for the discrimination claim; only the termination is undisputed. element age-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence] route prima-facie-case pattern no specific similarly situated younger comparator named; discharge by a separate safety committee for an admitted lifting violation fact @23939..24102 [cuts-against absent] | Plaintiff fails to set forth a single, specific comparator employee, giving this Court no opportunity to conduct the "meaningful comparison" required in Barricks . fact @28679..28912 [cuts-against absent] | Finally, although Plaintiff does state that both Alex and Rudy "could have been" in their 30s, and therefore younger than Plaintiff, he fails to provide any information about them other than that they were under Howard's supervision. fact @31657..31776 [cuts-against] | Neither party disputes that the material at issue was over 100 pounds-well over Progress Rail's 35-pound lifting limit. fact @32678..32755 [cuts-against absent] | And the Safety Committee at no point mentioned or referenced Plaintiff's age. rule @23400..23801 [quoted] | The Seventh Circuit has held that to allow for this meaningful comparison, a typical McDonnell Douglas plaintiff must show, at a minimum, that the comparators: "(1) dealt with the same supervisor, (2) were subject to the same standards, and (3) engaged in similar conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them." held @30075..30161 | Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of ADEA discrimination. held @35893..35973 | There is simply no evidence to suggest his age played a role in these decisions. ? route: the court also rejects the claim under Ortiz's holistic review and a cat's-paw theory (no evidence the supervisor's alleged bias proximately caused the committee's decision); one block, routed by the first ground element retaliation-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence] route _whole pattern overtime complaint (assumed protected) followed the same month by a cell-phone write-up, later sweeping duty and discharge by a committee not shown to know of the complaint fact @44020..44234 [supports] | And although Plaintiff may show temporal proximity- Howard reported him for a cellphone violation on August 29, 2016 and Plaintiff claims he complained about overtime opportunities at some point earlier that month, fact @43799..44019 [cuts-against absent] | Plaintiff has also failed to produce any evidence that another employee (who did not complain about overtime) escaped suspension or termination, despite using their cell phone or receiving an injury in a similar fashion. fact @44423..44592 [cuts-against absent] | In fact, Plaintiff offers no evidence to demonstrate that the Safety Committee even knew about his overtime complaint when they made the decision to terminate Plaintiff. rule @44250..44358 [quoted] | "timing alone is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact to support a retaliation claim." held @43418..43648 | Even if this Court assumes that Plaintiff's overtime opportunity complaint constituted a protected activity, the record shows no connection between this complaint and the cell phone suspension, termination, or sweeping assignment. held @45616..45870 | Without more facts to suggest that Howard was retaliating in response to Plaintiff's initial overtime complaint, or even the reassignment's temporal proximity to the initial overtime complaint, there is not enough evidence to support a retaliation claim. gloss Not given their own blocks: the court also holds that disputing the cell-phone suspension was not protected activity (no age-related complaint) and that the sweeping reassignment was not materially adverse; the overtime complaint is only assumed to be protected.