Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—7th Cir.: Employee failed to show pretext where employer chose more qualified external candidate, (Aug 25, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The employee’s opinion that he was the better candidate did not raise a factual dispute.

Affirming summary judgment in a manufacturer’s favor on an employee’s race and age discrimination claims, the Seventh Circuit ruled he failed to show the company’s reason for declining to promote him was pretextual. The employee applied informally months after the internal posting for the position had closed and lacked required qualifications, whereas the selected candidate had team-management experience. In addition, there was no evidence the hiring supervisor made any race- or age-related comments that undermined his stated assessment of the employee’s qualifications or rendered it “unworthy of belief” ( Highbaugh v. Exelead, Inc., No. 25-2638 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026)).

The employee, who is Black and was 60 years old at the time, worked for Exelead for about 28 years in various warehouse positions. In 2017, the company promoted him to the role of senior supervisor. During his tenure, his performance reviews varied. His supervisor had ongoing concerns about his communication and leadership skills and his lack of proficiency with Microsoft programs.

Open position. In 2022, the company had a vacancy for a materials manager position. The employee’s supervisor was responsible for conducting interviews and filling the vacancy. The job posting was opened internally from July 14 to 21, but the employee did not apply during that window. The posting instructed interested employees to submit the application form and a resume to HR.

Requirements listed in the job posting included 10 or more years of warehouse experience in the pharmaceutical industry, five or more years of department management experience, four or more years of experience with particular software, proficiency with Microsoft programs, and excellent organizational, leadership, and communication skills. After the internal posting had been open for a week, it was posted externally.

Handed resume to supervisor. About two months after the internal posting closed, the employee approached his supervisor on the warehouse floor and handed him his resume and an internal transfer form. The supervisor thanked him for his interest, advised him that he was not the candidate that he was looking for to fill the role, and explained that he was looking for someone with exposure to larger scale manufacturing and demonstrated leadership with a team. The supervisor also told him that he was interested in putting the employee in an alternative supervisor role with potential for more leadership responsibilities.

Hired candidate. In late October 2022, the supervisor hired an external candidate for the materials manager position. The candidate was a white man in his thirties. Although he was lacking in some of the qualifications, he had recently worked in another highly regulated industry and had managed teams of up to 20 people across multiple shifts and buildings.

About a month later, shortly before learning about the selection of the other candidate, the employee called his supervisor to ask about the status of his application. He offered him the supervisor role that they had previously discussed, but the employee declined and asked why he had not been interviewed for the materials manager position. The supervisor responded that he “needed someone who was able to manage multiple buildings.” Although he admitted the employee satisfied many of the requirements for the position, he said he had concerns about his skills in a variety of areas and did not believe he was seriously interested in the role based on how late he applied and the informal way in which he applied.

Lower court proceedings. After receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter, the employee filed a complaint alleging Title VII race discrimination, ADEA age discrimination and Sec. 1981 retaliation claims. The district court entered summary judgment in Exelead’s favor on all claims. With respect to the discrimination claims, the court reasoned that he failed to show that his supervisor’s stated reasons for declining to promote him were pretextual. The employee appealed only the discrimination claims.

Shifting explanations. Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Exelead’s favor, the appeals court found the employee failed to show the company’s justification for not promoting him – concern about his qualifications – was pretextual.

The employee first argued that a jury could find pretext because his supervisor and Exelead had inconsistent explanations for the decision not to promote him. The court disagreed, finding that his supervisor’s reason, the need for someone with larger-scale management experience, had been articulated consistently. Exelead stated that reason in its position statement to the EEOC, in the company’s interrogatory responses, and in the supervisor’s deposition.

In addition, about a month after the company hired the other candidate, the supervisor added to the explanation his concern about the employee’s communication skills and his belief the employee wasn’t sincerely interested in the position because of his late application. These added justifications, the court said, were neither shifting nor inconsistent. They aligned with the supervisor’s “contemporaneous explanation and appear merely to supplement or add color to that reasoning,” the court wrote.

Better qualified? The court also rejected the employee’s argument that a jury could find pretext because he was so much more qualified than the hired candidate that his supervisor could not have honestly believed the candidate was better qualified. The court acknowledged the employee possessed some of the qualifications necessary for the materials manager role. At the same time, so did the hired candidate. A comparison of the two did not objectively reveal that the employee was clearly better qualified for the position, according to the court. The employee might have had more years under his belt, but the hired candidate had the specific type of large-scale management experience the supervisor said he was seeking.

In addition, the employee was not involved in interviewing the hired candidate, so he could not speak to what else was revealed about his background or skillset beyond his resume that might have affected the supervisor’s decision. The employee’s own opinion that he was more qualified did not give rise to a material factual dispute, the court said.

Sincere belief. Further, the employee did not put forward any circumstantial evidence suggesting the supervisor did not sincerely believe the hired candidate was more qualified. There was nothing “inherently suspect or nonsensical” about the supervisor’s justification, the court said. In addition, there was no evidence of prior comments from the supervisor about race or age that contradicted his stated views on the employee’s qualifications that might render the explanation “unworthy of belief.”

Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Exelead’s favor.

The case is No. 25-2638.

Judge: Maldonado, N.

Attorneys: Amber K. Boyd (Amber Boyd Law) For Richard Highbaugh. Emily L. Connor (Littler Mendelson) for Exelead, Inc.

Companies: Exelead, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews