Summary
This Seventh Circuit opinion reverses the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Caterpillar Inc. on the plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the ADEA, finding that evidence of pretext and an unreasonable performance action plan permits a reasonable inference of unlawful intent and constructive discharge. The court affirms summary judgment on the retaliation claim due to the lack of causal connection given the decade-long gap between protected activity and adverse action. Additionally, the court holds that a supervisor's personal desk notes regarding the plaintiff's performance constitute inadmissible hearsay and do not qualify as business records.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Murphy was constructively discharged, constituting an adverse employment action under the ADEA.
- Whether the evidence of pretext establishes age discrimination liability.
- Whether Murphy's retaliation claim survives summary judgment.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper; Murphy presented sufficient evidence of constructive discharge to survive summary judgment.
- Summary judgment was proper; Murphy failed to show a causal connection between his protected activity and the adverse employment action.
Key quotations
“Evidence conflicting with an employer’s stated justifications for adverse employment action permits a reasonable inference of pretext and unlawful intent.” (at 1)
“The performance action plan was written so that Murphy had already failed, and it then refused to amend the plan when he pointed out the flaw.” (at 2)
Factual background
Murphy, age 58, had worked for Caterpillar since 1979 and received positive performance evaluations for decades. In early 2018 he was placed on a performance action plan that was already in default, the plan’s deadline had passed, and supervisors signed a failure box before he could comply. Murphy resigned and sued, alleging constructive discharge and age discrimination, as well as retaliation for prior litigation.
Procedural history
Murphy sued Caterpillar alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA. The district court entered summary judgment for Caterpillar on both claims. Murphy appealed the age‑discrimination judgment and the court reversed it, while affirming the summary judgment on the retaliation claim and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.