McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive

343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 2018-11-01

civil; ADEA age discrimination and retaliation; employer motion for summary judgment granted by ND Ill (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

3 Hiring discharge or employment terms satisfied conceded
On April 6, 2017, Progress Rail terminated Plaintiff and explained that he was being discharged for violating Shop Rule 31.
4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
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."
4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
Plaintiff fails to set forth a single, specific comparator employee, giving this Court no opportunity to conduct the "meaningful comparison" required in Barricks .
4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
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.
4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of ADEA discrimination.
4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
Neither party disputes that the material at issue was over 100 pounds-well over Progress Rail's 35-pound lifting limit.
4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
And the Safety Committee at no point mentioned or referenced Plaintiff's age.
4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
There is simply no evidence to suggest his age played a role in these decisions.
11 Retaliatory causal connection not no-evidence
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.
11 Retaliatory causal connection not no-evidence
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.
11 Retaliatory causal connection not no-evidence
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,
11 Retaliatory causal connection not no-evidence
"timing alone is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact to support a retaliation claim."
11 Retaliatory causal connection not no-evidence
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.
11 Retaliatory causal connection not no-evidence
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.