By: Derek Hawkins//February 8, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Terry Deets v. Massman Construction Company, et al.
Case No.: 15-1411
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Racial Discrimination – Title VII
Factual dispute exists as to whether appellant layoff has racial implications. Summary judgment grant is reversed.
“We are puzzled by the district court’s conclusion that Todt’s statement related directly to his decision not to rehire Deets rather than his decision to terminate Deets. True, in or‐ der for a statement to be probative of discriminatory intent, it must be “related to the employment decision in question.” Robin v. Espo Eng’g Corp., 200 F.3d 1081, 1089 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations marks omitted). But Todt made the statement at the time he informed Deets he was being laid off, see Oest v. Ill. Dept. of Corr., 240 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a statement’s “temporal proximity” to the adverse action “is often crucial” when determining whether statement qualified as direct evidence of discrimination), and directly in response to Deets’s inquiry about the basis for his termination. We are similarly puzzled by the defendants’ contention at oral argument that the motivation behind Deets’s layoff was immaterial because he was not entitled to work on the Liebherr crane when it went back into service. The parties do not dispute that Deets had lost seniority on that machine when it went out of service. But just because Deets was not entitled to that position does not permit MTA to lay him off because of his race. Title VII applies even to at‐will emplo ment and does not permit an employer either to fail to hire or to fire workers based on race. See Green v. Am. Fed’n of Teachers/Illinois Fed’n of Teachers Local 604, 740 F.3d 1104, 1105 (7th Cir. 2014); Loucks v. Star City Glass Co., 551 F.2d 745, 747–48 (7th Cir. 1977).”
Reversed and Remanded