01-3222 Peele v. Country Mutual Insurance Co.

Listen to this article

“After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with Country Mutual that the evidence of Peele’s deteriorating job performance is overwhelming. In the 18 months leading up to her termination, she was repeatedly warned by the company, both verbally and in writing, that her job performance was unacceptable.

“We are unpersuaded by Peele’s argument that evidence of her poor job performance must be balanced against the ‘favorable performance reviews, raises, and promotions’ she received during her eight-plus years with the company. In most cases, when a district court evaluates the question of whether an employee was meeting an employer’s legit imate employment expectations, the issue is not the employee’s past performance but ‘whether the employee was performing well at the time of [her] termination.’ Karazanos v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp., 948 F.2d 332, 336 (7th Cir. 1991). See also Fortier v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., 161 F.3d 1106, 1113 (7th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, prior job performance ‘evaluations, standing alone, [do not] create a genuine issue of triable fact when . . . there have been substantial alterations in the employee’s responsibilities and supervision in the intervening period.’ Fortier, 161 F.3d at 1113 (emphasis added). The bulk of the evidence documenting Peele’s performance deficiencies relates to her tenure as a CR2. Her responsibilities and work load as a CR2 were substantially different from those associated with her previous positions. The positive performance evaluations Peele received as a CR1, and, to even a lesser extent as a CSR, are therefore of no relevance.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Manion, J.