Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society

911 F.3d 450 (2018) United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2018-12-18

appellate review of age-discrimination and retaliation claims (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
    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).
  2. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
    No evidence suggests that these reasons were pretextual.
  3. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment not no-evidence
    The judge was right to enter summary judgment for CUNA Mutual on the age-discrimination claim.