Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—7th Cir.: Fired Exxon Mobil employee is unable to revive bias and retaliation claims on appeal, (Aug 6, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun

“As she tells it, her gender, age, and complaints of discrimination caused her supervisors to nitpick at her work and eventually push her out.”

In affirming summary judgment for an employer, Exxon Mobil, in a case brought by a former customer service employee who claimed age and gender discrimination, plus retaliation, the Seventh Circuit found the record lacking in evidence to support the former employee’s claims. The court acknowledged that the former employee “worked under difficult conditions in a toxic workplace” but found that on the limited record presented, it could not find that a reasonable factfinder would rule in her favor. The employee did not connect any of the events that led to her termination to her age, presented inadequate evidence that men were treated differently, and did not sufficiently link her complaints to her worsening performance reviews and termination to show retaliation, according to the court (Ontiveros v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-2645 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025)).

Complaints. The worker joined Exxon at an Illinois facility in 2010 as a contractor. Five years later, she became a full-time customer service employee. From 2017 until she was terminated in 2019, she worked under a manager who had a “demanding management style.” The manager instituted a new pre-approval policy for overtime hours and pushed his department to complete more work within the workday. She complained that she was not receiving overtime pay and was ultimately given that pay. She also complained that her manager, and the manager above him, behaved inappropriately, used derogatory language, and created a hostile work environment. She stated that her manager winked at her and at least one other woman, and that the manager above him told her he was going to sit on her lap. A human resources department investigation found that the managers did not violate any company policy, but that the department had extremely low morale and multiple employees shared it was difficult to complete the work given in an eight-hour day.

Performance reviews and firing. In the years leading up to her termination, the employee received a “B” rating in 2016 and 2017, a “C” rating in 2018, and a “D” rating in 2019. Upon receiving the “D” rating, she was given the option to be put into the “Management of Lower Relative Performance” (MLRP) program and go on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or accept “Pay in Lieu” (a severance package). The employee left the meeting where she was given these options, allegedly yelled at her manager, and was asked to leave but did not. According to Exxon, as a result of her behavior, both the MLRP program and severance package options were revoked, and she was fired.

Gender discrimination. The appeals court determined that the employee did not connect the inappropriate comment or behavior of her first- and second-level managers, which occurred a year before her termination, to the decision to fire her. The court noted that the employee had “shown evidence of a work culture that put increasingly impossible workloads on staff, denied them overtime, and allowed sexualized and inappropriate comments.” However, the court determined that the evidence was insufficient for a jury to reach the conclusion that the employee’s gender caused her termination.

Age discrimination. Although the employee was 42 at the time of her termination, the court found that she could not “connect any of the events that led to her termination to her age.” Her strongest argument, and the only one the court found that she supported with facts and law, was that two younger workers were treated more favorably. However, those two younger workers were contractors and not similarly situated, according to the court, since they were not subject to performance reviews.

Retaliation. The employee also did not sufficiently link her complaint to her worsening performance reviews and termination for purposes of proving retaliation. The court noted that “although it is true that criticisms of her performance increased after her complaints, that fact is insufficient to build a causal chain as the performance issues began before she complained and continued for months.” The court also found that nothing was presented to support an inference that Exxon’s stated reason for withdrawing the PIP option was a lie.

Summary judgment in favor of Exxon was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-2645.

Judge: Jackson-Akiwumi, C.

Attorneys: Christina Abraham (Abraham Law & Consulting) for Gricelda Ontiveros. Ami N. Wynne (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius) for Exxon Mobil Corp.

Companies: Exxon Mobil Corp.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews