United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018-11-01
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA age discrimination and retaliation; employer motion for summary judgment granted by ND Ill; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
Element age-causation: 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
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 31
| Case | Employer coverage and exclusions | Age forty or older | Hiring discharge or employment terms | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives | Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 31
| Case | Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity | Covered employment agency | Covered labor organization | Opposition or participation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 31
| Case | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | Retaliatory causal connection | Agency referral discrimination | Membership classification referral or causing discrimination | Employer agency or union advertiser | Age-based notice or advertisement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 31
| Case | Wage reduction to comply | Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan | Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan | Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction | Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance | Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 31
| Case | Narrow bona fide occupational qualification | Displayed scope and specialized exclusions | Charge filing waiver and remedies | Foreign workplace conflict with local law | Good cause for employer discharge or discipline | Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence | no specific similarly situated younger comparator named; discharge by a separate safety committee for an admitted lifting violation | Plaintiff fails to set forth a single, specific comparator employee, giving this Court no opportunity to conduct the "meaningful comparison" required in Barricks .Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [23939:24102] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [28679:28912] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.Neither party disputes that the material at issue was over 100 pounds-well over Progress Rail's 35-pound lifting limit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [31657:31776] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.And the Safety Committee at no point mentioned or referenced Plaintiff's age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [32678:32755] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [23400:23801] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of ADEA discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [30075:30161] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.There is simply no evidence to suggest his age played a role in these decisions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [35893:35973] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293. |
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Hiring discharge or employment terms | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded 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. | material handler discharged for a safety-rule (manual lifting) violation; termination undisputed | On April 6, 2017, Progress Rail terminated Plaintiff and explained that he was being discharged for violating Shop Rule 31.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [16554:16677] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293. |
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Retaliatory causal connection | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence 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. | 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 | 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,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [44020:44234] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [43799:44019] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [44423:44592] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293."timing alone is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact to support a retaliation claim."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [44250:44358] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [43418:43648] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [45616:45870] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293. |