Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Six month gap between engagement in protected activity and termination is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of a causal connection.

Horwitz v. Board of Educ. of Avoca School Dist. No. 37, 260 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. July 26, 2001) - Karen Horwitz sued the Board under the ADEA alleging age discrimination and retaliation, and under the FMLA alleging retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights. For the 1993-1994 school year, Horwitz, then age 48, was hired to teach fourth grade. Two years later, at age 50, she was granted tenure. In April of 1999, she was terminated after repeated criticisms of her work performance (mainly related to problems getting along with parents, co-workers and superiors). She had filed her first EEOC charge in June of 1997 alleging age discrimination. She filed her second EEOC charge in June of 1998 alleging retaliation for the first EEOC charge. She filed suit on October 16, 1998. Then, on March 16, 1999, she went out on leave. The Board requested documentation to support the leave on several occasions. On April 21, Dr. Sloan, the district superintendent, wrote Horwitz to inform her that he was recommending her termination. On April 22, her physician sent a letter stating that Horwitz was absent due to depression. On April 23, the Board voted to terminate Horwitz based on her continued unprofessional and insubordinate behavior. The Court holds that her ADEA discrimination claim fails because she did not establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case (i.e. she failed to show that similarly situated younger employees were treated more favorably. Her ADEA retaliation claim fails because she failed to establish a prima facie case of a causal connection. For example, a six month gap between the filing of her lawsuit and her termination is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of a causal connection. Even if she had establish a prima facie case of age discrimination or retaliation, she failed to show that the Board's proffered reasons for her termination were pretextual. Finally, her FMLA claim fails for the same reason -- Horwitz failed to show that the Board's proffered reasons for her termination were pretextual. Click here to see actual case.