Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Employment Discrimination
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-1920
Decision Date: 
December 18, 2018
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant discriminated against plaintiff on account of his age for failing to hire plaintiff into pension participant support specialist position after plaintiff’s position with defendant had been eliminated, and for retaliating against plaintiff for pursuing appeal of initial denial of his age discrimination claim. Plaintiff failed to present evidence to counter defendant’s explanation that plaintiff was not hired for position because he lacked one-on-one customer-service experience that younger successful candidate had, and because plaintiff’s salary goal was higher than defendant’s salary range for said position while successful candidate’s salary goal was within said range. Fact that interviewer noted that successful candidate had “potential for longevity” was not evidence of age discrimination, where said comment was tied to successful candidate’s enthusiasm and persistence. Also, defendant’s retaliation claim was untimely, where alleged retaliatory act, i.e., defendant’s sending of letter to plaintiff indicating that it will file lawsuit seeking to enforce waiver provision of plaintiff’s severance agreement if plaintiff persisted in his appeal of initial denial of his age discrimination claim, occurred more than 300 days prior to plaintiff’s filing of his retaliation charge. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that said claim was timely where it was filed within 300 days of defendant’s filing of lawsuit seeking to enforce said waiver clause. (Partial dissent filed.)