Seventh Circuit Upholds Decision in Favor of Employer in Race Discrimination Case
1 min read
Nov 28, 2012
Two African-American nurses filed a complaint against their hospital-employer alleging that the hospital had discriminated against them on the basis of race and retaliated against them for their complaints about racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Throughout their employment, both nurses complained about their working conditions. They alleged their supervisors failed to make the changes that they recommended and treated them less favorably due to their race. The nurses also alleged that they were retaliated against due to their complaints of race discrimination.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer finding that the nurses had not presented a triable issue of fact. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the nurses had not presented any evidence showing that they were treated differently from a similarly situated employee. The Seventh Circuit also found that simply because the employer did not respond favorably to the nurses' complaints, did not create a circumstantial case of discrimination. It reasoned that Title VII does not protect against personal animosity or juvenile behavior and that the fact that “someone disagrees with you or declines to take your advice does not, without more, suggest that they discriminated against you.”
The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the retaliation claim. The Court found that the nurses had not provided any evidence of an adverse action by their employer. The Court reasoned that personality conflicts or generally getting the “cold shoulder” from a boss is not an adverse action that can serve as a basis of a Title VII claim.
It's not against the law to be a jerk. Not every negative actions by a supervisor can lead to a claim under Title VII or even corresponding state law. This case demonstrates that Title VII has limitations as to how far it will protect employees in certain circumstances. As always, employers are reminded to ensure that their policies, procedures, and practices comply with federal and state law, and that employees and management alike receive required training concerning the employer's anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation policies.
For more information visit the U.S. Court of Appeal website.
Featured Insights

Press Release
May 20, 2026
Hinshaw Releases America 250 Book Exploring Insurance's Role in Building the United States

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 19, 2026
OCC's Final Escrow-Interest Preemption Rules Bolster the Second Circuit’s Cantero Decision

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 MBA Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
SCOTUS Confirms: Federal Courts Retain Power to Affirm or Vacate an Arbitration Decision

In The News
May 13, 2026
Hinshaw Contributes Chapters to “Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions” IICLE Handbook

In The News
May 12, 2026
Hinshaw GC Steve Puiszis Discusses Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in an AI Age

Event
May 12-13, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Speaks on the Rapidly Evolving Cannabis Industry

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 11, 2026
Tennessee Reaches Settlement with Mariner in Multistate UDAAP Enforcement Action

Press Release
May 11, 2026
Ali Degan Elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation

Press Release
May 11, 2026
John Weedon Re-Elected to the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Board of Governors in 2026

