Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—C.D. Ill.: Sales manager, denied promotions and had position eliminated, advances marital discrimination claim, (May 11, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

Despite the employee’s subsequent remarriage one month prior to the elimination of his position, the employer could still have “perceived” him as being divorced or separated.

A federal district court in Illinois denied summary judgment to an employer accused of discriminating against an employee on the basis of marital status in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) after he alleged that the employer denied him promotions, eliminated his position, and ultimately offered him a lower-paying role because he was going through a divorce. Rejecting the company’s argument that the employee was not a member of a protected class because he had been married, divorced, and remarried during the relevant time period, the court determined a reasonable jury could find that the employee was protected under the IHRA as “separated” or “divorced,” and that genuine disputes existed regarding whether the employer considered the employee’s divorce proceedings when making employment decisions (Witvoet v. Big Iron Auction Company, No. 1:24-cv-1345 (C. D. Ill. May 7, 2026)).

The employee was hired in 2019 as a district sales manager for an auction company operating in the Midwest region. In 2022, the employee sought an internal promotion to a regional manager position. Around the same time, the employer acquired another auction company and subsequently reorganized its regional structure.

Promotion sought. After the reorganization, the employee again applied for a newly created regional manager position covering Illinois and Missouri. Rather than promoting the employee, the employer selected another individual who had previously worked for the acquired company.

Position eliminated. About a year after applying for the regional manager position, the employee was informed that his position was being eliminated. Although the employer initially offered the employee continued affiliation as an independent sales representative, the employee requested consideration for an internal territory manager role instead. The company accepted that request but offered the employee a salary of $50,000 annually. Allegedly, three co-workers whose positions were also eliminated were offered superior positions and salaries of approximately $80,000 annually.

Divorce proceedings. During the same time period, the employee filed for dissolution of marriage, finalizing his divorce in February 2023 before remarrying later that same year. According to the employee’s deposition testimony, a senior supervisor explicitly told him he would not be promoted “because you are getting divorced.” The employee argued that even after his remarriage, the employer continued to perceive him through the lens of his recent divorce and filed suit for discrimination based on marital status. The employer moved for summary judgment.

Protected individual? First, the court addressed whether the employee qualified as a protected individual under the IHRA, which defines unlawful discrimination to include discrimination based on “actual or perceived” marital status and specifically protects individuals who are married, single, separated, divorced, or widowed.

The employer argued that the employee’s shifting marital circumstances removed him from protection because he had been married, divorced, and remarried during the relevant period, but the court rejected this argument, reasoning that the employee was clearly “separated” at the time he applied for the promotions because he had already initiated divorce proceedings.

Perception. In addition, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer still perceived the employee as divorced or separated when later eliminating his position, despite his remarriage. The court emphasized the statute’s inclusion of “perceived” marital status as protected conduct and concluded that the employee had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on this issue.

Discriminatory intent. Next, the court addressed disparate treatment and discriminatory motive under Seventh Circuit precedent, and whether a reasonable juror could conclude that the employee would have avoided the adverse employment actions if his marital status had been different while all other factors remained the same.

The court determined that the employee’s sworn deposition testimony created a direct factual dispute regarding discriminatory intent. Specifically, the employee testified that a supervisor informed him he was “not fit” for promotion because he was going through a divorce. Although the employer denied that such comments were made and offered a competing affidavit from the supervisor, the court held that credibility determinations cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

Comparators. Lastly, the court rejected the employer’s argument that the employee lacked appropriate comparators because he was remarried and therefore could not compare himself to married co-workers at the time his position was eliminated. The court reasoned that a jury could still find that the employer perceived the employee as recently divorced and treated him differently for that reason. Moreover, the court noted, the company failed to present evidence showing that the proposed comparators differed materially from the employee in qualifications, responsibilities, or performance standards, and the comparators occupied nearly identical positions and were subject to the same management structure and employment standards.

Accordingly, the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-1345.

Judge: Hawley, J.

Attorneys: Ronald S. Langacker (Langacker Law) for Zackery J. Witvoet. Abbey Chun Furlong (Lane & Waterman) for Big Iron Auction Co.

Companies: Big Iron Auction Co.

Cases: Discrimination StateLawClaims IllinoisNews