Mary Ann Arnold v. United Airlines, Inc.

Chicago, Illinois employment law lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a job discrimination theory.



Mary Ann Arnold brought this action against her former employer, United Airlines ("United” or "the Company”), alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA”) and the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA”). Ms. Arnold also brought claims of a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. After discovery, United filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. The 2 No. 24-2179 district court granted this motion as to the discrimination claim, the retaliation claim, and the hostile work environment claim. The court dismissed the constructive discharge claim without prejudice as unexhausted.



* * *



When considering an ADEA claim at summary judgment, a "court must consider all the evidence in the record to determine 'whether a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff suffered an adverse action because of her age.'” Vassileva, 118 F.4th at 873 (quoting Carson v. Lake County, 865 F.3d 526, 533 (7th Cir. 2017)). Our case law recognizes two approaches for establishing such discrimination. Under the "holistic” approach, explicitly acknowledged in Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), we "look at the evidence in the aggregate to determine whether it allows an inference of prohibited discrimination.” Vichio v. US Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023). Under the alternate route, a plaintiff can present her case by relying on the burden-shifting framework first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this approach, the plaintiff first must make out a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that (1) she is a member of the protected class (people over forty years of age), "(2) she performed her job to her employer's legitimate expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) one or more similarly situated individuals outside her protected class received better treatment.” Brooks v. Avancez, 39 F.4th 424, 434 (7th Cir. 2022). If the plaintiff successfully meets these requirements, the defendant must "articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” Tyburski, 964 F.3d at 598 (quoting Skiba v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 719–20 (7th Cir. 2018)). If the defendant successfully shoulders that task, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's proffered reason is pretextual. Id. Ms. Arnold attempts to establish discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Affirmed