Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ill.: Delivery assistant fails to show bias motivated termination decision, (Jan 8, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Two alleged adverse actions—unfair scheduling and denial of promotion—were supported only by citations to his complaint, rather than the factual record.

Granting summary judgment against a delivery helper’s Title VII, ADA, Section 1981, and state-law claims, a federal district court in Illinois determined that the employee failed to show that the stated reason for his termination was pretextual. The employee contended that his employer cited at least five different reasons for its termination decision, but he failed to explain why a reasonable jury would view these explanations as inconsistent rather than cumulative, and any alleged inconsistency thus could not, by itself, provide evidence of pretext (Gibbs v. Abt Electronics, Inc., No. 21 CV 6277 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2026)).

The employee in this case is Black and suffers from vitiligo. He worked for the employer as a delivery helper from February 20, 2017, until his termination on April 18, 2020. In his role as a delivery helper, he was part of a two-person team with a delivery lead, who served as the “face” of the delivery truck and who was usually the more senior employee.

Racial slurs. Throughout his tenure with the company, the employee experienced several issues with other employees, including coworkers using the N-word around the employee in December 2018 and February 2019.

Bonus fund. The employer uses a “discretionary bonus fund” as a method of evaluating employee performance and as incentive program. Every four months, the employer deposits money in a “bonus fund” for each employee. If an employee performs well, the employer issues a “learning letter” reflecting the good performance and adds to the fund. If an employee performs poorly, the employer issues a letter reflecting that performance and deducts money from the bonus fund. Positive balances are paid out at the end of the month, while negative balances carry over. A negative balance at the end of a four-month period is grounds for termination.

In this instance, the employee maintained a positive balance through October 2018, but had a negative balance from November 2018 through February 2020. These negative amounts stemmed, in part, from learning letters referencing urine bottles found in delivery trucks. The employee also received learning letters for failure to attend safety trainings and for failing to wear steel-toed boots.

Poop emoji. On October 10, 2019, the employee told the employer that a manager had sent him a “poop emoji” via text message. The employee did not understand the precise meaning of this text, but found it to be disrespectful, degrading, and retaliatory, leading to police being called over the text. When a police officer came to the store on October 15 to complete a report, the employee told the officer that the manager did not care about his feelings, to which the manager responded, “I don’t give a damn about your feelings” and told the employee “to stop acting like such a victim.” The employee relayed this interaction to another manager via email on October 23.

Termination. The employee was terminated in April 2020, allegedly because he was not wearing his steel-toed boots despite receiving earlier warning letters about his failure to comply with this company policy. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit.

Timeliness. First, the employer argued that many instances of the alleged harassment could not be considered because they were untimely. The employee contended that the court should consider the pre-August 2019 incidents because they represented a pattern of ongoing harassment and discriminatory treatment from 2017 through the employee’s termination, “including repeated use of the N-word, mocking his disability, differential scheduling and discipline, and retaliation” and thus constituted a “continuing violation.” The court was not moved.

Here, the employee failed to explain how the alleged discriminatory incidents formed a single unlawful employment practice, said the court, noting that he did not make any effort to connect the use of racial slurs by coworkers from February 2019 and earlier to any instances of alleged discrimination that took place during the statutory period, such as the poop emoji and bonus fund deductions.

According to the court, “His analysis of the continuing violation doctrine’s applicability to his allegations is so cursory that he fails to provide even a single citation to the factual record to support it.” As such, the court stated that it would only consider conduct within the statutory period for the purpose of the employee’s discrimination claims.

ADA claims. Turning to those discrimination claims, the court first found that the employee’s ADA claims failed because the employee failed to provide any explanation for why his vitiligo qualified as a disability.

Adverse employment actions. As to the employee’s remaining discrimination claims, he asserted that he experienced “numerous adverse employment actions,” including “the denial of promotion/lead opportunities; unfair scheduling and delivery assignments; disproportionate discipline (urine bottle, safety issues); manipulation of bonus fund through fines and denied reversals; harassing conditions and intimidation; [and] suspension and termination.”

The first two alleged adverse employment actions were supported only by citations to the employee’s complaint, rather than the factual record, which the court explained was insufficient to meet his burden at the summary judgment stage.

With regard to the employee’s claim of disproportionate discipline, this appeared to be largely based on the learning letter he received concerning the left behind urine bottle in his truck and the employer’s commensurate $500 fine. The employee did not dispute that the bottle was his and conceded that dozens of employees received nearly identical learning letters and fines.

The employee’s harassment claims also failed for a lack of evidence that might create a genuine dispute of material fact. Although the court agreed that the poop emoji was “incredibly unprofessional,” the employee did not attempt to explain how it was connected to either his race or disability and conceded that he did not know the significance of the emoji. Further, there was nothing to support his assertion that the police response to the emoji was meant to intimidate him.

No pretext. It is undisputed that termination constitutes an adverse employment action, explained the court. In this case, the employer asserted that the employee was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons—his negative bonus fund balance and poor attitude.

In response, the employee argued that the employer had provided “shifting explanations” for its decision, pointing to five different reasons given for his termination, including his failure to wear steel-toed boots. However, the employee failed to explain why a reasonable jury would view these reasons as inconsistent, rather than cumulative.

Further, the court observed the fact that the employee had a negative bonus fund was not inconsistent with the assertion that he was not wearing safety boots, which may have been one cause for the negative balance, or that the employer found his attitude to be negative when he was confronted over the boot issues.

Ultimately, the employee conceded that his negative bonus balance was a legitimate reason for his termination, and he could not point any genuine dispute of material fact on that record. Thus, the court granted the employer summary judgment against his discrimination claims.

Retaliation. Next, the court addressed the employee’s retaliation claims. Because it was previously established that his vitiligo did not constitute a disability, the court rejected his claim for ADA retaliation.

With respect to his Title VII, Section 1981, and state-law retaliation claims, the court noted that the only adverse action experienced by the employee was his termination. The protected activities on which he relied consisted of various conversations he had with coworkers and managers, and a meeting where he discussed the use of racial slurs with management. Here, the court found no causal connection between his termination and the asserted protected activities, and found summary judgment was also appropriate as to these claims.

Wage claims. Finally, the employee asserted that he was denied wages dues under Illinois law. Here, the court found his argument to be “so cursory and underdeveloped,” that any argument on this point was waived.

The case is No. 21 CV 6277.

Judge: Alexakis, G.

Attorneys: Antonio Jeffrey (Law Offices of Antonio Jeffrey) for Justin Gibbs. Jennifer Anne Naber (Laner Muchin) for Abt Electronics, Inc.

Companies: Abt Electronics, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims IllinoisNews