Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ill.: Senior living facility secures dismissal of dishwasher’s sexual orientation, disability bias, and retaliation claims, (Sep 3, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

Repeated attendance and conduct problems undermined the employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims, while his allegations of workplace bullying could not establish actionable harassment.

A senior living staffing company was entitled to summary judgment on a former dishwasher’s Title VII and ADA claims alleging sexual orientation and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The federal district court in Illinois found undisputed evidence the employee repeatedly arrived late, missed work without notice, left during scheduled shifts, and at times refused assigned duties. He also failed to identify a similarly situated employee who received better treatment or evidence suggesting the employer’s stated reasons for terminating him were pretextual. His hostile work environment claim likewise failed because only one alleged comment was connected to his sexual orientation and the employer promptly investigated his complaints (Guzman v. Clarendale of Algonquin, Life Care Services Community Employment LLC , No. 1:22-cv-01072 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2026)).

Attendance problems. The employee began working in August 2020 as a part-time dishwasher, formally titled a utility technician, at a senior living facility providing independent living, assisted living, and memory care. His duties included maintaining cleanliness in the kitchen, dish service and storage areas, and washing and organizing kitchen supplies. He was gay and had hearing loss and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Beginning in March 2021, the employee repeatedly arrived late or missed work without advance notice. An April disciplinary notice documented 20 instances of lateness or absence in one month, which he admitted. Later, in May, he failed to appear for a shift without notifying the employer and received another disciplinary notice.

During this period, he also lodged a series of workplace complaints. In April, he complained that coworkers made comments about his liking “older guys,” called him a “pizza face,” gave him pitying looks, and talked behind his back. He also claimed his supervisor disclosed that he was a rape survivor and gave him a “hard time” over a vacation request.

The employer investigated, interviewing the supervisor and other employees. The supervisor denied disclosing details about the employee’s request for leave to testify in a rape and assault proceeding, and a coworker said she had been told only that the employee needed time off for court.

Additional complaints. In May, the employee submitted another report accusing his supervisor and coworkers of spreading rumors about his rape, PTSD, depression, and sexual orientation and secretly photographing him. He also complained that human resources had not provided an American Sign Language interpreter during an April meeting.

Although an interpreter could not be provided immediately during the April meeting, the employer arranged ASL interpreters for two subsequent meetings. It also interviewed 10 servers who worked with the employee, all of whom denied hearing coworkers gossip about or ridicule him.

The employee continued submitting complaints over the following weeks, repeatedly alleging gossip and name-calling. The employer continued investigating but said it found no evidence substantiating the accusations. When asked to identify those responsible, the employee at one point responded that “every single server” was involved, including some employees who had not been working on dates when the alleged conduct occurred.

His workplace problems continued. After one meeting, he left work without informing his manager despite being scheduled for a shift. In June, he spilled garbage on the floor, refused a request to clean it up, and left before his shift ended without notifying his supervisor.

In July, after he submitted more than 20 pages of additional allegations concerning mistreatment and rumor-spreading, the employer terminated him. It cited his performance as well as the administrative burden and workplace strife it believed his numerous complaints had created. He subsequently sued under Title VII and the ADA.

No discrimination. The employee could not establish sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII or disability discrimination under the ADA. Applying the traditional burden-shifting method, the court noted that the employee was gay and hard of hearing and that his termination constituted an adverse employment action. But he could not establish that he was meeting the employer’s legitimate expectations.

The undisputed evidence showed multiple disciplinary notices, frequent tardiness and absences, departures from work without notice, and occasions when he refused to perform assigned duties. The employee did not dispute those events but argued that they occurred against the backdrop of a discriminatory hostile work environment.

That argument did not establish satisfactory job performance. Whether coworkers subjected him to harassment did not alter the employer’s legitimate expectations that he report to work as scheduled and perform his assigned duties, the court explained. Nor did he identify a similarly situated comparator. He pointed to no employee who was neither gay nor disabled who engaged in comparable attendance or performance misconduct but avoided termination.

The employee also failed to establish pretext. The employer relied on his documented performance problems and the numerous complaints it considered unsubstantiated. Simply asserting that the employer was lying, without supporting evidence, could not create a genuine factual dispute.

Hostile environment. His hostile work environment claim fared no better. Of the alleged remarks and conduct—including being called a “pizza face,” coworkers taking photographs with him in the background, gossip about his rape, and other workplace comments—the court found only the statement that he liked “older guys” related to a characteristic protected by Title VII.

Under Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 804 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2015), actionable harassment must be based on a protected characteristic and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. The single sexual-orientation-related comment did not meet that standard. The record did not establish how frequently the remark occurred or over what period.

Citing Scruggs v. Garst Seed Co., 587 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2009), the court reiterated that isolated incidents, offhand remarks, and simple teasing generally do not alter the terms and conditions of employment.

There was also no basis for employer liability. The employer promptly investigated the employee’s complaints through interviews and written statements and found them unsupported. Under Seventh Circuit precedent, prompt investigation is a hallmark of reasonable corrective action. The employee offered no competent evidence challenging the adequacy of those investigations beyond his contention that coworkers and his supervisor lied during them.

No retaliation. Finally, the employee could not establish retaliation under either Title VII or the ADA. The court found it unnecessary to determine whether his numerous complaints constituted protected activity because he could not establish the required causal connection to his termination.

Under University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), Title VII retaliation requires proof that the adverse action would not have occurred but for the protected activity. The Seventh Circuit similarly requires but-for causation for ADA retaliation claims.

Although the employee’s complaints were among the reasons cited in connection with his termination, he did not dispute the employer’s evidence of his attendance and behavioral problems. In light of those independent and documented deficiencies, he could not show that his termination would not have occurred absent his complaints. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims as well and terminated the case.

The case is No. 1:22-cv-01072.

Judge: Daniel, J.

Attorneys: Justin M. Guzman, pro se. Neil Hunter Dishman (Jackson Lewis) for Clarendale of Algonquin, Life Care Services Community Employment LLC.

Companies: Clarendale of Algonquin, Life Care Services Community Employment LLC

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge IllinoisNews