Skiba v. Ill. Central Railroad Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Employment Discrimination
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-2002
Decision Date: 
March 8, 2018
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employee’s motion for summary judgment in ADEA and Title VII action, alleging that defendant discriminated against him on account of age and national origin, where defendant eventually removed him from his management position, failed to transfer him to similar position and then retaliated against him for complaining about supervisor. Plaintiff failed to engage in any statutorily-protected “protest” of discrimination, where plaintiff registered only general complaints about his supervisor’s conduct without attributing said conduct to any discriminatory animus. Also, age-related statements by supervisors and others, such as how old plaintiff was, how another candidate was “a little faster” at grasping aspects of job, or how plaintiff had “low energy” or was close to retirement age did not constitute evidence of age-related bias, where: (1) said individuals offered age-neutral explanations for said remarks; (2) some statements were made by non-decision makers; and (3) reference to plaintiff’s retirement age did not have exact correlation with plaintiff’s age so as to constitute evidence of age discrimination as set forth in Hazen Paper, 507 U.S. 604. With respect to plaintiff’s failure to obtain new position, plaintiff failed to show that he was qualified for majority of 82 positions sought by plaintiff, and fact that younger co-workers received said positions did not establish any age discrimination claim, where plaintiff presented no details such as co-workers’ qualifications or employment history to show that plaintiff was similarly-situated to said individuals.