United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018-12-18
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: appellate review of age-discrimination and retaliation claims; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence 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. | hiring/customer-service-and-pay-range-reasons | 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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15302:15608] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.No evidence suggests that these reasons were pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15609:15665] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.The judge was right to enter summary judgment for CUNA Mutual on the age-discrimination claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15666:15760] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc. |
| /f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 | Charge filing waiver and remedies | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; theory: retaliation charge timing; subject: theory=retaliation charge timing 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. | charge-accrual/unequivocal-waiver-enforcement-notice | Wrolstad waited more than 300 days to file his retaliation charge with the Commission.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [2484:2570] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.The judge correctly concluded that Wrolstad's retaliation charge was untimely.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [20762:20840] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
The ADEA protects workers 40 years of age and older from age-based employment discrimination.
/f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
The ADEA protects workers 40 years of age and older from age-based employment discrimination.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [9406:9499] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.The age floor comes from §631, not §623. A comparator or replacement may itself be over forty; substantially younger is the relevant inference, not membership outside the protected class.
interpretation
Under the so-called Ricks rule, the clock for this limitations period commences "when an employer communicates an adverse employment decision to the employee, not when the full consequences of that action are felt." Gustovich v. AT&T Commc'ns, Inc. , 972 F.2d 845, 847 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Del. State Coll. v. Ricks , 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) ).
/f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
Under the so-called Ricks rule, the clock for this limitations period commences "when an employer communicates an adverse employment decision to the employee, not when the full consequences of that action are felt." Gustovich v. AT&T Commc'ns, Inc. , 972 F.2d 845, 847 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Del. State Coll. v. Ricks , 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) ).Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [16385:16759] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.Enforcement is not another merits element. Wrolstad applied a 300-day deferral-state deadline to unequivocal notice of a threat to sue. Federal §633a procedures and Babb causation are separate; see NOTES scope map.