Baines v. Walgreen Co.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in Title VII action alleging that defendant failed to rehire plaintiff in 2014 in retaliation for plaintiff having filed 2009 EEOC charge arising out of her earlier employment at defendant that ended in 2008. Instant passage of time between filing of EEOC charge and date of adverse act did not preclude plaintiff from maintaining viable retaliation claim, and plaintiff’s 2014 application for rehire was defendant’s first opportunity to retaliate for her 2009 EEOC Charge. Moreover, plaintiff did not rely on evidence of “suspicious timing” to support her retaliation claim, but rather relied on defendant’s suspicious behavior that included: (1) defendant’s deviation from its standard hiring procedure; (2) missing records of plaintiff’s application and her interview scores; and (3) fact that defendant hired less-qualified individual that had no prior experience with defendant. As such, significance of instant time gap was matter for jury to resolve. Also, supervisor’s statement to third-party witness that another supervisor told her not to hire plaintiff did not violate hearsay rule, since: (1) direction to supervisor not to hire plaintiff was “command” that was outside hearsay rule; and (2) statement by supervisor to witness about what supervisor was told was admission by agent of party opponent.