Summary
This Seventh Circuit opinion reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United Airlines in an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by former employee Mary Arnold. Arnold alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act, claiming she was subjected to age discrimination, retaliation, a hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Arnold failed to establish an adverse employment action under the Supreme Court’s Muldrow standard, could not demonstrate disparate treatment compared to similarly situated coworkers, and did not prove pretext or performance to legitimate expectations. Additionally, the court found Arnold waived her argument regarding retaliation for a sexual harassment complaint by failing to raise it below.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the ADEA and IHRA age discrimination claim.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the retaliation claim under the ADEA and IHRA.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the hostile work environment claim.
- Whether the constructive discharge claim should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was affirmed because the plaintiff failed to establish an adverse employment action, a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, and pretext for United's legitimate reasons.
- Summary judgment was affirmed because the plaintiff did not allege a protected activity related to age discrimination and did not show a materially adverse action.
- Summary judgment was affirmed because the plaintiff did not assert a hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment in the district court and presented no sufficient evidence of a severe or pervasive environment.
- The constructive discharge claim was dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
Key quotations
“We construe all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor, but the moving party may prevail ‘by showing an absence of evidence to support’ the nonmoving party’s claims.” (at 1)
Factual background
Mary Ann Arnold worked for United Airlines in communications from 1994 until her resignation in May 2020. She complained in 2017 of age discrimination, failure to promote because of a disability, and retaliation. In 2018 she reported sexual harassment by a supervisor. United reorganized her department in 2019, reassigned her to a different team, placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and she resigned, calling it an "involuntary retirement."
Procedural history
The district court granted United's motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims and dismissed the constructive discharge claim without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the grant de novo and affirmed.