Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—7th Cir.: HR manager’s sex bias, retaliation claims revived amid evidence of sexist workplace culture, (Jul 24, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The company did dispute that men in managerial roles regularly made inappropriate comments and jokes to and at the expense of women employees.

Reviving the Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation claims of a female HR manager, and “serial reporter” of discrimination and harassment to her supervisor, who was fired one week after her latest retaliation complaint, the Seventh Circuit found she presented sufficient evidence in support of those claims—including of a culture of sexism at the aluminum foundry in which suggestive comments flowed freely as well as evidence of pretext—such that a reasonable jury could find in her favor. The court, however, affirmed summary judgment on her pay discrimination claim, which was too undeveloped for it to determine whether her alleged comparator was similarly situated. Judge Kirsch, dissenting in part, disagreed that her sex discrimination and retaliation claims warranted a trial (Pratt v. Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, No. 24-1901 (7th Cir. July 23, 2026)).

The employee began working for the family-owned aluminum foundry in 2016 in the HR department and was promoted to HR manager the following year at a starting salary of $65,016. A few months later, the company hired a man to be its environmental health and safety manager, duties the employee’s predecessor had performed, and he received a starting salary of $85,328.

Early errors and complaints. Although she performed well in her first year, she made several errors in early 2018, including making mistakes on a benefits spreadsheet, failing to catch a rate change for insurance premiums, and filling a union position with an external candidate. She also began to report concerns of discrimination and harassment to her supervisor, a senior VP and the company’s chief product officer. She complained about discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, and disability and shared her personal experiences of being called “bitch” and “cunt.”

She reported numerous complaints about an operations VP, including that he discussed a female employee’s “ass” at a meeting, told her to get up on the table and show it to him, and stuck his thumb on the table and told her to “sit on it and he would spin her.” The employee prepared a written report of the incident but apparently left it on a copy machine and it was turned over to her supervisor, who was concerned that she left a confidential report out in the open. She was given additional training on conducting and documenting HR investigations while the VP was not disciplined.

Consulting report. At some point, the company engaged a third-party consulting group to help manage its growth and it compiled feedback on the company’s culture and managers. It found the culture was one of gossip and drama and concluded that the managers, including the employee, lacked the trust of others, had hidden agendas, and gossiped. As a result of the report, the employee’s supervisor gave her a bad performance review and she did not receive a bonus in 2018.

Termination. Concerned, the employee met with her supervisor and later emailed him saying she felt he was retaliating against her for reporting the incidents regarding the operations VP. She was fired a week later.

Lower court proceedings. She sued the company under Title VII for retaliation, sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and pay discrimination. The district court dismissed her hostile work environment claim at the pleadings stage and later granted summary judgment against her remaining claims.

Suggestive comments or conduct. Addressing first the employee’s sex discrimination claim, the Seventh Circuit noted evidence reflecting that the company’s culture was one in which suggestive comments flowed freely, including that male managers regularly made inappropriate comments and jokes to and at the expense of women employees. The employee also claimed that she and her HR coworkers, all women, felt that they were treated like secretaries and that she received pushback for reporting workplace harassment and discrimination and was called a “bitch” and a “cunt” for trying to do her job.

She repeatedly reported this conduct to her supervisor, who took little or no action. At a certain point, said the court, a reasonable jury could view his inaction as acquiescence or even tacit approval of this conduct. Further, said the court, in light of his senior executive role at the company, “a jury might reasonably deduce that he was influenced by this sexist environment, and in fact, had lent it his imprimatur by failing to intervene and address [the employee’s] complaints.” And despite his knowledge of his subordinates’ bias and of their participation in the consulting report, he did not question whether the report could have been tainted by a broader culture of sexism at the company.

“As a result,” the court continued, “a jury could find that because [he] relied on input he understood to be discriminatory and acceded to the discriminatory atmosphere, his own decision to discharge [the employee] was made because of her sex.” Moreover, said the court, several of its sister circuits have, in similar contexts, recognized the importance of assessing workplace culture in discrimination claims by considering discriminatory comments and actions.

Dishonest justifications. In addition, the employee presented evidence of dishonest justifications for her termination including negative feedback she received in the consulting report, concerns about her ability to keep sensitive HR information confidential, and errors she made in early 2018. Some of the errors occurred a year before she was fired and other employees who had similarly negative feedback in the report received bonuses, not notices of termination.

Disparate treatment. She also pointed to evidence that two similarly situated male managers, including the operations VP, who were at a similar managerial level as her, reported to the same supervisor, and received similar negative feedback in the consulting report were not disciplined or fired. Indeed, the operations VP received a bonus. Based on the totality of the evidence, the court found there was “at least one reasonable way to tell the story” in the employee’s favor, supporting an inference that she was fired because of her sex. Accordingly, it reversed summary judgment on this claim.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s claim she was fired in retaliation for reporting harassment and discrimination at the company and for complaining to her supervisor that she believed she was being retaliated against, the court rejected the district court’s conclusion that she did not engage in protected activity. The district court, observed the Seventh Circuit, focused solely on the operations VP’s jokes about an employee’s “ass” and found the jokes were not unwelcome or intended to harass.

But what matters, said the appeals court, is that the plaintiff reasonably and honestly believed she was reporting prohibited conduct. And here, she wrote in her report that the VP’s comments were “unprofessional and against the law” and that “any witnesses to [it] have the ability to file a sexual harassment complaint with the company.” Further, said the court, a “joke about an employee exposing her buttocks or being told to sit on another employee’s thumb might be considered actionable sexual harassment by some.”

In addition, the employee repeatedly reported conduct by other managers to her supervisor that she believed was prohibited under Title VII as well as conduct directed toward her including being called a “cunt” and a “bitch.” She also twice told her supervisor she believed she was being retaliated against.

Unique rule. In finding that the employee did not engage in protected activity, the district court, relying on a Second Circuit case, “adopted a unique retaliation rule applicable only to HR employees,” the Seventh Circuit observed. According to the district court, in order to bring a retaliation claim, the employee had to show she was not simply performing her job duties in passing along complaints, but that she was actively supporting other employees in asserting their Title VII rights or personally complaining about discriminatory conduct.

Doubtful that this “heightened standard for retaliation claims by HR employees passes muster,” the court noted that “by its text, Title VII requires only that [the employee] oppose an unlawful employment practice.” Noting that it did not need to decide whether to accept the heightened standard, the court explained that the employee vigorously opposed conduct directed both at her and others.

Causal connection. The employee also presented evidence of a causal link between her protected reporting and her termination, including that she was fired only a week after complaining in an email to her supervisor of retaliation. Though the company argued that the supervisor had decided to fire the employee prior to that email, that was just one example of the protected activity in which the employee engaged, said the court, noting that she “was a serial reporter of discrimination and harassment” throughout her tenure as HR manager. Moreover, the court observed, the supervisor’s declaration statement that he decided to fire her before her email complaint was in tension with his own deposition testimony that he could not remember when she was fired.

Finally, the court noted evidence of pretext, including that her supervisor wrote in her performance review that she was “good on the benefits side,” but then cited issues with benefits as a reason for her termination and that no other employee who received negative feedback in the consulting report was terminated. For all these reasons, the court also reversed summary judgment on this claim.

Pay discrimination. Affirming summary judgment on her pay discrimination claim, the court found that while she identified as a comparator the individual who took over the environmental health and safety manager duties, the record was simply too undeveloped to determine whether he was a sufficient comparator.

Partial concurrence and dissent. While Judge Kirsch agreed with the majority that the company was entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s pay discrimination claim, he would have affirmed summary judgment on her other claims as well. “To salvage [the employee’s] suit,” he wrote, “the majority ignores the distinction between direct discrimination and hostile work environment claims and creates a special comparator analysis for executives.”

Arguing that a faithful application of Seventh Circuit precedent should have resulted in summary judgment for the company, the judge asserted that “Sexist comments by non-decisionmakers, employees who weren’t similarly situated to [the employee], and a delay between some of [her] failures and the decision to fire her do not add up to a Title VII discrimination claim. Similarly, [her] retaliation claim fails because she cannot show that [the company’s] stated, legitimate reasons for ending her employment were a lie.”

The case is No. 24-1901.

Judge: Maldonado, N.

Attorneys: Nicholas O. Yurk (Alan C. Olson & Associates) for Debra Pratt. Jennifer L. Ciralsky (Littler Mendelson) for Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry.

Companies: Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry

MainStory: TopStory Discrimination SexDiscrimination PayDiscrimination Retaliation IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews