Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blake v. Lowe's Home Centers

February 7, 2006


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge


This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38), to which plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 47), and defendant a reply (Doc. 50).

Plaintiff filed his complaint against defendant seeking to recover for alleged age-based discrimination. Plaintiff alleges that in December of 2002 he was terminated as a result of his age and he then filed a discrimination claim with the EEOC and the Illinois Human Rights Commission. He subsequently took employment at Varnell Struck and Associates. Plaintiff claims that in September of 2003, defendant gave a negative performance report to plaintiff's supervisor at Varnell Struck and Associates, and that plaintiff was ultimately fired from that position. These claims are all combined in a single count complaint against Lowe's.

In his response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff acknowledges that in the "current complaint" there are "insufficient facts of age discrimination while plaintiff was actually working for Lowe's to reach a jury." (Doc. 47). Plaintiff asserts, however, that there are sufficient facts to go forward on the retaliation claim.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of age discrimination, and will address only the issue of retaliation.

1. Plaintiff's Retaliation Claim

The record reveals that in 1999, plaintiff was 64 years old when he was hired by Lowe's in Alton, Illinois. The defendant has submitted a statement of material facts to which plaintiff has filed a supplemental list of material facts. Each side has responded.

Plaintiff's retaliation claim is based on events that occurred while he was employed by Varnell Struck, a company that contracted with Lowe's to service merchandise in the Lowe's stores, including the Alton store from which he had been fired. The record reveals that plaintiff visited this store one to two times per week and his responsibility included taking inventory and rearranging shelves in the stores. (Pl. Dep. 127-28) Lowe's had a protocol on how to document and destroy damaged products. This protocol specified which individuals could destroy damaged property. (Id. at 131, 136.) In September of 2003, plaintiff acknowledges that he threw damaged Lowe's products, including light fixture parts and ceiling tile, into the store dumpster (id. at 132). The defendant asserts that plaintiff threw away aluminum facia and drip edge, which plaintiff denies. (Pl. Affidavit. ¶ 8-13). The store manager, Lisman Dolphy, testified that he saw plaintiff taking facia and drip edge out of the store to the dumpster. (Dolphy dep. 43-43, 63-66). Dolphy then had the department manager, Brial Blechick, check to see if plaintiff had done this, and it was confirmed. He also checked to see if plaintiff had followed the protocol and filled out paperwork for the destroyed items, which he had not (id. at 44-45). Plaintiff asserts that he was, at some point, given permission to throw away product, but he cannot remember when that occurred. (Pl. Depo. 139). He also asserts that he made a list of the items he wanted to destroy and gave that list to the Lowe's RTM clerk (Id. at 135). Based on this violation of store protocol, plaintiff's supervisor at Varnell Struck, Justin Honse, was advised that plaintiff could not return to the store. (Id. at 45-46).

A. Standard of Review

"A claim for race, sex, age, or disability discrimination, or one for retaliation can survive summary judgment if the plaintiff provides direct or indirect evidence of discrimination or retaliation." Moss v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 83394 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2006); Rogers v. City of Chicago, 320 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir.2003).

"Direct evidence essentially requires an admission by the decision-maker that his actions were based on the prohibited animus," Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 616 (7th Cir.2000). Plaintiff has presented no such direct evidence that he was retaliated against by Lowe's for filing the EEOC claim for age discrimination.

In evaluating retaliatory discharge claims, this Court can use the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis. Hiatt v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir 1994) (citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). Under this inquiry, plaintiff can establish the requisite "but-for" causation of his termination, without presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence that the termination was retaliatory. 26 F.3d at 767. The rationale behind this analysis is to allow plaintiffs to substantiate their claim, without subjecting them to the difficulties that they would otherwise likely encounter in discovering evidence about the allegations. Id.

Under the indirect method, for plaintiff to establish a prima-facie case, and thereby utilize this presumption, he must prove that he was: (1) the member of a protected class; (2) adequately performing his job; (3) but, nonetheless, he was terminated; (4) while others were treated more favorably. Id. at 768 (citation omitted). At a minimum, the plaintiff must establish a "triable issue as to each element in order to survive. . . summary judgment." Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2004). In this case, this showing is difficult, given the nature of the plaintiff's claims, i.e. that he was removed from the Alton Lowe's store access and given a bad review by Lowe's employee Dolphy, in retaliation for his filing an EEOC claim against Lowe's.

Clearly plaintiff has established elements 1 and 3: he was a member of the protected class due to his age and he was terminated. The next inquiry is whether plaintiff was meeting his employer, Varnell Struck's, expectations. According to the record, plaintiff, because he could not return to Lowe's, was terminated by Varnell Struck. He acknowledged in his deposition that any employee, Lowe's or Varnell Struck, would be terminated for throwing away products in contravention of Lowe's protocol. (Pl. Depo. at 157). Plaintiff claims that the reason he was not allowed to return to Lowe's was based on a false allegation of wrongdoing. He asserts he did not dispose of any aluminum facia or drip edge. (Pl. Depo. at ¶ 12.) He also asserts that Dolphy's allegations against him were the direct result of filing the age discrimination claim. (Id. at ¶ 15.) The record reveals that Varnell Struck's policy is that if an employee is asked not to return to any of the stores it serves, then the employee is unable to fulfill the job and will be terminated. (Coto Aff. ¶ 10.) Lynn Coto is the manager of Human Resources for Varnell Struck. Her affidavit further provides that as a result of his inability to complete his duties, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.