Ehnae Northington v. H & M International , 712 F.3d 1062 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    No. 12-1233
    E HNAE N ORTHINGTON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    H & M INTERNATIONAL,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    No. 08 CV 6297—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
    A RGUED O CTOBER 26, 2012—D ECIDED M ARCH 21, 2013
    Before E ASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and C UDAHY and
    T INDER, Circuit Judges.
    C UDAHY, Circuit Judge. This is a Title VII case involving
    two issues on appeal: whether in a grant of summary
    judgment there was any relevant issue of material fact
    and whether a discovery sanction was properly applied
    and adhered to by the district court.
    Since 2005, plaintiff-appellant Ehnae Northington
    worked as a lot checker at one of H & M Interna-
    tional Transportation’s railroad and trucking terminals,
    Global II. Northington dated an H & M employee, Terrell
    2                                           No. 12-1233
    Maghett. Maghett was also involved in a seven-year
    relationship with another H & M employee, Shequita
    Sims. Sims became suspicious of the existence of a rela-
    tionship between Northington and Maghett and
    made verbal and physical threats toward Northington.
    Northington brought certain concerns that she had
    about Sims’ behavior to the terminal manager, Bart
    Collins. However, Collins was then dating (and has
    subsequently married) Sims’ mother, Tanga Hoskin-
    Collins, the assistant terminal manager. Collins met
    with Sims and Northington to attempt to settle their
    dispute and warned them to keep their personal dis-
    putes outside of the workplace.
    The conflict between Northington and Sims culminated
    in Sims’ physically assaulting Northington at a gas
    station, off H & M property. Northington then filed a
    criminal complaint against Sims. Sims pleaded guilty to
    battery and the Cook County Circuit Court issued an
    Order of Special Conditions of Bond or Release (SCOB),
    which required Sims not to have any unlawful contact
    with Northington at work. Northington provided the
    SCOB to the Union, but did not provide a copy to H & M.
    Additionally, Northington made internal complaints
    to H & M officers, including H & M’s President and
    Director of Operations. Northington complained that
    Sims and Hoskin-Collins harassed her, and she com-
    plained about the management style of Collins and
    Hoskin-Collins. Northington did not complain that
    the harassment was based on her race or gender.
    During a safety inspection of Northington’s work
    vehicle, the inspector suspected that Northington was
    No. 12-1233                                            3
    under the influence of drugs due to certain behavior:
    slow response time, difficulty following conversation
    and constricted pupils. The inspector spoke to Collins
    and they agreed that Northington should be tested for
    drugs based on their “reasonable suspicion,” which was
    consistent with H & M’s policy. Northington and the
    inspector went to Concentra, a drug testing facility, and
    Northington provided a urine sample. A Concentra
    nurse determined that the sample was unusable be-
    cause it was “too cold.” Concentra procedures required
    a second urine sample, within three hours, under the
    direct observation of a Concentra nurse. Northington
    was instructed to wait in the waiting room until she
    could donate another sample, but she left Concentra
    without providing a second sample, despite warnings
    that such an exit would be considered a “Refusal to
    Test” and be reported to H & M.
    Collins requested that Mary Hayes, Vice President of
    Human Resources, terminate Northington’s employ-
    ment based on her refusal to test. Hayes conducted an
    investigation, reviewed by two other H & M officers,
    and these three officers concluded that Northington
    had refused to take a reasonable suspicion drug test,
    under procedures provided by Concentra, and that situ-
    ation warranted termination. Effective May 2, 2008,
    Northington was terminated by H & M due to her
    refusal to test. The three H & M officers were unaware
    of Northington’s criminal complaint against Sims.
    Northington filed suit, claiming that her termination
    was in retaliation for a series of complaints against
    Sims and in violation of Title VII. The district court
    4                                                 No. 12-1233
    granted H & M’s motion for summary judgment,
    finding that Northington failed to establish her retali-
    ation claim because she did not establish that she
    had participated in protected activity under Title VII.
    Northington appeals the district court’s decision
    granting summary judgment.
    In the lower court, Northington filed a motion for
    sanction for failure to produce electronically stored
    information on the basis that H & M had failed to
    preserve the contents of relevant email accounts. Collins
    and Hoskins-Collins were no longer employed by H & M
    by September 2008 and their accounts were remotely
    wiped. In January 2010, H & M moved its email system
    to another vendor. During this transition, Sims’ account
    was deemed inactive and deleted. H & M should
    have preserved these accounts. The district court found
    that H & M’s conduct was negligent but not willful and
    (1) ordered H & M’s counsel to conduct another search
    for documents; (2) assessed H & M reasonable costs
    and fees; (3) deemed specific facts admitted at trial; and
    (4) precluded H & M from making certain argu-
    ments at trial.1 Northington argues on appeal that this
    sanction precluded the award of summary judgment.
    1
    The Order mandated the follow instruction to a jury or judge
    in a bench trial: “At trial, the jury be instructed that begin-
    ning in July 2008, the defendant had a duty to preserve
    all electronically stored information, including emails, con-
    cerning plaintiff’s allegations but did not do so. In addition,
    the defendant is barred from arguing that the absence of
    discriminatory statements is evidence that no such state-
    ments were made.”
    No. 12-1233                                                5
    The district court had jurisdiction in this matter
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1331
     (2006). As an appeal from
    the district court’s final order, this court has jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2006). We review a district
    court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. O’Rourke v.
    Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, 
    635 F.3d 938
    , 941 (7th Cir.
    2011). Summary judgment is proper when the record
    shows that there is no genuine dispute of any
    material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The district court
    did not err by granting summary judgment in favor
    of H & M. Further, the discovery sanction entered
    against H & M does not preclude summary judgment.
    I.
    Northington filed internal complaints and a criminal
    complaint regarding Sims’ treatment of her. Title VII
    protects those actions only if the complaints arose
    from harassment based on a protected factor. See 42
    U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2006). A plaintiff can establish re-
    taliation using a direct or indirect method of proof.
    To establish a Title VII violation under the direct
    method, a plaintiff must show that she (1) engaged in
    statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse
    employment action taken by the employer; and (3) there
    was a causal connection between the two. Kodl v. Bd. of
    Educ. Sch. Dist. 45, 
    490 F.3d 558
    , 562 (7th Cir. 2007). Under
    the indirect method, a plaintiff must show that she
    (1) engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) met the
    employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) suffered an
    adverse employment action; and (4) was treated less
    6                                               No. 12-1233
    favorably than similarly situated employees who did
    not engage in a statutorily protected activity. Amrhein v.
    Health Care Serv. Corp., 
    546 F.3d 854
    , 859 (7th Cir. 2008);
    Kodl, 
    490 F.3d at 562
    .
    An employee engages in a protected activity by either:
    (1) filing a charge, testifying, assisting or participating
    in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or
    hearing under Title VII or other employment statutes;
    or (2) opposing an unlawful employment practice. Vague
    and obscure “complaints” do not constitute protected
    activity. See Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 
    547 F.3d 841
    , 850-51 (7th Cir. 2008). The record demonstrates that
    Sim’s behavior toward Northington did not involve
    Northington’s race or gender; rather, it was personal
    and based on Northington’s involvement with Maghett.
    There is nothing in the record which indicates that
    Sims, who is of the same race and gender as Northing-
    ton, was motivated by anything but personal conflict. Be-
    cause the harassment itself was not a purported viola-
    tion of Title VII, Northington’s complaints do not
    qualify as alleging a protected activity. The district court
    properly held that Northington’s retaliation claim fails
    as a matter of law.
    Thus, the district court’s analysis of H & M’s motion
    for summary judgment correctly concluded that pro-
    tected activity was not involved. None of Northington’s
    alleged protected activities (filing internal complaints
    and filing a criminal complaint) qualified as such.
    These involve simply personal conflicts.
    No. 12-1233                                            7
    II.
    The remaining matter of the discovery sanction
    is easily dismissed. Northington contends that the dis-
    covery sanction requires application of an adverse in-
    ference and therefore precludes summary judgment
    for H & M. She argues that the sanction allows an ad-
    verse inference that the negligent destruction of elec-
    tronically stored information indicates the lost informa-
    tion contained evidence of Title VII violations. However,
    the sanction only prevents H & M from inferring
    an absence of discrimination from the lack of evidence.
    The Magistrate specifically noted that H & M did not
    destroy the evidence in bad faith, which is a required
    element for allowing this kind of adverse inference. See
    Fass v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 
    532 F.3d 633
    , 644 (7th
    Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the discovery sanction entered
    against H & M does not preclude summary judgment.
    Northington’s Title VII retaliation claim fails because
    she was not engaged in a protected activity. The district
    court did not err in granting summary judgment for
    H & M.
    A FFIRMED.
    3-21-13
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1233

Citation Numbers: 712 F.3d 1062, 2013 WL 1150215, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5568, 117 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1053

Judges: Easterbrook, Cudahy, Tinder

Filed Date: 3/21/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024