United States Seventh Circuit

In a suit alleging retaliation, ERISA violations and retaliatory discharge, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the record did not conclusively establish that plaintiff was terminated prior to engaging in protected activity; 2) plaintiff presented evidence establishing a prima facie case of retaliation and defendant offered no unrebutted evidence that it fired her for non-pretextual reasons; 3) defendant did not have the requisite intent to violate ERISA because it had no economic incentive to take the allegedly adverse action; and 4) plaintiff's good-faith belief that defendant's classification of her employment was not lawful, coupled with the fact that there was arguably some "public interest" implicated by defendant's conduct, was enough to overcome summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim. Dismissal of plaintiff's pro se complaint alleging sex discrimination is affirmed where the complaint failed to state a claim.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/22/2007
• Decided 02/12/2008
• Published 02/12/2008

Judges

• EVANS, Circuit Judge., Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and KANNE and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Lewis W. Beilin (argued), Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Christopher L. Gallinari (argued), Bellows & Bellows, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.