Employment — race discrimination — retaliation

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Employment — race discrimination — retaliation

Where an employee engaged in no protected activity, and her work was deficient, summary judgment was properly granted to the employer on her discrimination and retaliation claims.

“The indirect method of proof for retaliation mirrors that for discrimination. Specifically, Moultrie must show that he: (1) engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) met his employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity. Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972, 983 (7th Cir. 2014). Several problems with Moultrie’s theory are readily apparent. First, he struggles to identify any evidence of protected activity. And as we discussed in analyzing his discrimination claims, his on-the-job performance was seriously inadequate, and he has failed to point to similarly situated employees who received more favorable treatment. Because Moultrie cannot show retaliation under either method of proof, summary judgment on this claim also was proper.”

Affirmed.

13-2206 Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum International, LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Herndon, J., Sykes, J.