Discrimination Claims: Focus on What Really Matters, Not a “Rat’s Nest of Surplus Tests”

Posted: Updated:

Employers in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin dealing with discrimination cases will now be judged against a simplified standard of analysis for discrimination claims, complaints and lawsuits. In a recent decision, the  Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals scolded the entire approach to discrimination cases, calling it a “rat’s nest of surplus tests.”

Here are a few practical tips to assist you and your attorney when faced with this new landscape of discrimination cases in the Seventh Circuit…

Employers dealing with discrimination cases will now be judged against a simplified standard of analysis for discrimination claims, complaints and lawsuits. In a recent decision (Ortiz v. Werner Enter., Inc.,), the  Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals scolded the entire approach to discrimination cases—from the attorneys to the district court and appellate judges in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin—calling it a “rat’s nest of surplus tests.”

The Court said:  “[S]top separating ‘direct’ from ‘indirect’ evidence ….”  According to the Seventh Circuit, the direct-and-indirect framework does nothing to simplify the analysis, and actually complicates matters by forcing parties to consider the same evidence in multiple ways.  The Court ultimately held, “Instead, all evidence belongs in a single pile and must be evaluated as a whole.”

The decision makes it clear that, after all is said and done, the ultimate question in any discrimination case “is simply whether the evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the plaintiff's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or other adverse employment action,” and it makes little sense to follow the current, overly complicated, approach of sorting facts into piles, elements, or other restricting analysis tools.

Since the decision, some courts have stated that the “sole question” is whether a reasonable jury could conclude that discrimination occurred. Other district courts seem more reluctant to abandon the formulaic framework.

Now, I’m sure you are now wondering, so what? Or, as an employer, you may be asking yourself, why should I care? Well, you should care because attorneys, judges and employers in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin are now on notice of how to approach claims, complaints and lawsuits dealing with discrimination. Yes, I meant to include “employers” in the “folks” put on notice by the Ortiz decision.

Employers are on notice because they too need to stop focusing on the complicated elements of discrimination claims and turn their focus back to the big picture. The big picture is the consideration of evidence as a whole. The big picture is not looking at single pieces of evidence or even sorting evidence into piles for consideration when faced with a discrimination claim.

The following are a few practical tips to assist you when faced with this new landscape of discrimination cases in the Seventh Circuit.

Practical Tips:

·         DON’T overlook the fact that a plaintiff must still sustain an adverse employment action, regardless of the test to be applied to the claim of discrimination. It is important to not get lost in the details. The Seventh Circuit has not changed what a plaintiff must prove – discrimination – rather, it has just changed how everyone should be looking at the discrimination question.

·         DON’T be afraid to do your analysis of whether discrimination occurred.

·         DON’T use old language when talking to an administrative agency or Court – e.g., do not refer to “mosaics of the evidence” or the sorting of evidence into “direct” or “indirect” evidence.

·         DO look at the nature of the adverse employment action decision – was it in any way connected to the statutorily protected characteristic? If so, understand that your decision may end up before a jury.

·         DO look at all of the facts together, without sorting them into piles.

·         DO challenge the decision maker(s) and their thought processes – a failure to do so may put your employer’s decision in front of a jury.

·         DO train your managers, supervisors, human resources personnel and all personnel that discrimination will not be tolerated.

·         DO understand that the “jury” is still out on whether the Ortiz decision will mean more jury trials in the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is still affirming district court decisions granting summary judgment at what appears to be a regular rate. In the words of an old Ice Miller tag line, “It’s a complex world. Be advised.”

Don’t fall into the trap of pulling out your attorney’s last position statement or brief and check what elements the person needs to prove. Every lawyer and non-lawyer can take away from the Ortiz decision that each situation needs to be viewed as a whole. Although the Seventh Circuit did not reverse the results of any prior decisions while announcing its refined analysis standard, the same does not mean that a more vigorous, dare I say generous, view of the evidence may be in the Seventh Circuit’s future.

It is very difficult to say what a “reasonable jury” will do. In fact, what is a reasonable jury? Your guess is as good as mine. However, in the end, what matters is what the Court/judge thinks is a reasonable jury. Again, your guess is as good as mine. The key is to make sure that you and your attorney look at the big picture and don’t narrow your focus to whether or not it fits into piles, elements or other restricting analysis tools.

Please contact Paul Sweeney at (317) 236-5894 or paul.sweeney@icemiller.com, or another member of Ice Miller LLP's Labor, Employment and Immigration Practice Group if you have any questions regarding this article.

Paul Sweeney practices in Ice Miller LLP’s Labor, Employment and Immigration group and is a member of the Employment Litigation group. During the course of his experience, he has had numerous bench and jury trials in state (Indiana and West Virginia) and federal (Indiana, Colorado and West Virginia) courts. Paul has also assisted clients in all facets of litigation, including arbitration, mediation and matters related to workplace violence restraining orders, temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunction proceedings.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.

  • Perspectives

    • Invest In Talent Earlier, A Proven Solution For Indiana’s Future Workforce

      As ever-changing technology and workforce needs continue to outpace advances in the classroom, the skills gap has become a widely discussed topic in the business community. Do we have the talent to fill these jobs of the future? While dialogue is important, the skills gap challenge requires real action and collaboration – most importantly, between the education and business communities. By equipping students with the skills that will be valuable to them in the future workforce...



  • Most Popular Stories

    • (photo courtesy Paoli Peaks)

      Indiana Ski Resort Included in Sale

      Paoli Peaks in Orange County is one of many ski resorts across the country being sold to Vail Resorts, Inc. of Broomfield, Colorado. The company has agreed to purchase 100 percent of the outstanding stock of Peak Resorts, Inc (Nasdaq: SKIS). The purchase price of $11 per share is subject to conditions and regulatory review, and Peak Resorts' shareholder approval.  

    • Myers: Cummins Deal Has Phone Ringing in Greenwood

      Columbus-based Cummins’ decision to locate a $35 million digital and IT hub in Greenwood is expected to bring more than 500 jobs, with average annual salaries in excess of $100,000 to the Johnson County city. But Mayor Mark Myers says the impact will extend far beyond the high tech center. Myers says the announcement has triggered increased interest in Greenwood from companies that could diversify the city’s corporate base. "To have Cummins come to Greenwood...
    • (rendering courtesy of our partners at The Herald Bulletin)

      Feds Put Brakes on Anderson Bus Terminal Project

      Plans to build a new bus terminal in downtown Anderson are on hold for now because the federal government is requiring a third environmental impact study.  Our partners at The Herald Bulletin say the city hoped to open the new terminal next February. Now it appears the bus transit center will not be completed until the summer of 2020. Anderson Mayor Tom Broderick told the publication an outhouse was discovered during the Phase 2 environmental study.  Old glass...

    • Photo courtesy of Kouts Health Care Inc

      Kouts Business Owner Indicted

      A Hoosier woman has been indicted for failing to submit payroll taxes at her two health care clinics, Kouts Health Care Inc. and Kouts Family Health Care Inc.  between 1999 and 2015. Kathy Lynch allegedly withheld payroll from her employees’ paychecks but failed to submit over $500,000 of the withheld taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. 

    • (photo courtesy of GCI Slingers)

      Manufacturer Growing in Boone County

      Zionsville-based Gravel Conveyors Inc. has announced plans to expand. The Indiana Economic Development Corp. says the company, which manufactures commercial materials placement machines, will invest nearly $7.5 million to add to its Boone County facility and create nearly 40 jobs by the end of 2022. Doing business as GCI Slingers, the company specializes in building and assembling mobile conveyors and hydraulic systems and says increasing demand from its Midwest client base led to the...