August 2013 Volume XII No. 11 Taking Care of Business
About Us Comments Unsubscribe Disclaimer

Through Inconsistency and Complicated Arguments, Employer Defendant Warrants Summary Judgment Reversal in Seventh Circuit Pregnancy Discrimination Action

The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Jennifer Hitchcock v. Angel Corps, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00276 (7th Cir. June 11, 2013) makes clear that an employment discrimination defendant should avoid “clever” arguments, instead arguments for summary judgment should be “clear” and “uncomplicated.”

Plaintiff Jennifer Hitchcock alleged that her employer Angel Corps, a home care agency, discriminated against her because she was pregnant in violation of The Pregnancy Act after she was fired in connection with a “bizarre incident” involving the death of a potentially 100-year-old patient. Just weeks previous to her termination, Hitchcock had informed her supervisor of her pregnancy. An agreed-upon magistrate judge initially dismissed the action on summary judgment. Hitchcock subsequently appealed.

On appeal the 7th Circuit started its analysis by extensively explaining that “a more straight-forward analysis of whether a reasonable jury could infer prohibited discrimination” needs to be implemented, explaining that the traditional McDonnell analysis is “worn-out.” Further, the Court explained that “the various tests that we insist [Plaintiffs] lawyers use to [avoid summary judgment] have lost their utility.” The Court’s opinion reversing the magistrate’s summary judgement decision clearly emphasizes the need for low complexity and technicality in the analysis of discrimination cases. In fact, even though addressed by the Court, it wasn’t Hitchcock’s various forms of evidence tending to show discriminatory animus, it was the employer’s failure to provide a concise and consistent reason for her termination.

The clear take away from this case is that employers, when terminating or otherwise taking any potentially perceived adverse employment action, should unequivocally determine the reasons for said actions, ensure that all decision makers are on board and understand the action, and provide that action reasoning to the employee and in related paperwork. Employers should not attempt to further explain, clarify, or supplement their decisions after the fact. As the Court explained, employers create their own inference of pretextual discrimination through the use of “shifting” or “fishy” reasoning for adverse actions. In light of Hitchcock, keeping it simple is the safest practice.


If you have any questions concerning this article, contact your Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP relationship attorney.


Give Article Feedback »    |   E-mail HWE »    |   Visit Our Website »

Copyright © 2013 Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP
All rights reserved www.hwelaw.com

DISCLAIMER: The materials provided (or those distributed at other times) and this presentation are not intended to be legal advice. This information is presented for educational purposes only and nothing in the materials or the presentation shall constitute legal advice, accounting or other professional advice or services. The facts and circumstances of a specific legal or accounting matter are unique and the materials and the presentations are not intended to apply to you or to a specific case, client or taxpayer. You should seek legal or other advice for your specific questions or concerns. The law changes constantly. The principles discussed in the materials and/or in the presentation may change. Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, LLP, and each of the speakers, authors or presenters assumes no liability whatsoever in connection with the use of the information or with future rulings that may affect the material presented.

Nothing in this presentation or these materials can be used for the purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer. It further cannot be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, and a taxpayer receiving such information under such circumstances should seek advice from an independent tax advisor. As always, professionals should be consulted with the comprehensive and precise facts of a situation before providing or taking advice.