Source: cases/29usc623/f3d-911-450-wrolstad-v-cuna.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_911/0450_01/index.html
The judge was right to enter summary judgment for CUNA Mutual on the age-discrimination claim.
The judge correctly concluded that Wrolstad's retaliation charge was untimely.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/911/0450-01 name Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society cite 911 F.3d 450 (2018) court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit date 2018-12-18 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_911/0450_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl sha1=189fbd9e1fc14a68063fc8fc54e7a3d6e343602e chars=25128 law 29usc623 role applied posture appellate review of age-discrimination and retaliation claims result claimant-lost element age-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence] scope merits variant hiring/customer-service-and-pay-range-reasons fact @15302..15608 [cuts-against] | CUNA Mutual articulated several legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for preferring Logemann: (1) he had customer-service experience (Wrolstad did not); (2) he showed great enthusiasm for the position; and (3) he was willing to work for a salary within the range established for the job (Wrolstad was not). fact @15609..15665 [cuts-against absent] | No evidence suggests that these reasons were pretextual. held @15666..15760 | The judge was right to enter summary judgment for CUNA Mutual on the age-discrimination claim. gloss The court affirms summary judgment on the actual ADEA treatment claim. Separate new material was forfeited, and the court also discusses it alternatively; that does not turn this case into a rule-only decision. element enforcement : not-satisfied [law] scope procedural theory retaliation charge timing variant charge-accrual/unequivocal-waiver-enforcement-notice fact @2484..2570 [cuts-against] | Wrolstad waited more than 300 days to file his retaliation charge with the Commission. held @20762..20840 | The judge correctly concluded that Wrolstad's retaliation charge was untimely. gloss The retaliation charge is untimely under the applicable deadline. This is a legal accrual ruling, not an abandonment finding and not a decision about retaliation merits. misfit The 300-day charge period is contextual, not universal. The same opinion decides treatment merits and retaliation timing on different grounds; typed scope keeps them distinct.