Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WHISTLEBLOWERS—7th Cir.: Seventh Circuit affirms rulings against former Garrett Popcorn executive in food-safety retaliation case, (Aug 17, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court found insufficient record for trial-related challenges and no evidence the employer knew of FDA complaints.

A federal appeals court has largely upheld rulings against a former Garrett Popcorn Shops executive who alleged she was fired for raising food-safety concerns. The court dismissed challenges to several trial-related rulings because the appellant did not provide the transcripts necessary for appellate review, affirmed summary judgment against a portion of her federal whistleblower claim, and left intact a jury verdict finding no causal connection between her complaints and her termination. The court also concluded that any dispute over the dismissal of her Illinois retaliatory discharge claim was effectively foreclosed by the jury's verdict (Putnam v. Caramelcrisp, LLC, No. 25-1516 (7th Cir. Aug. 13, 2026)).

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part an appeal brought by Aisha Putnam against CaramelCrisp LLC, doing business as Garrett Popcorn Shops. Putnam had alleged retaliation under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and Illinois common law after her employment ended in March 2019.

Background. According to the opinion, Putnam began working for CaramelCrisp in 2014 and ultimately became director of research and development. She also carried quality-assurance responsibilities that included monitoring compliance with food-safety requirements. Over the course of her employment, she reported concerns including allegedly inaccurate nutritional labeling, plans to repackage expiring chocolate, and a roof leak that she believed could affect food safety.

In late February 2019, Putnam sent an anonymous complaint to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding food-safety issues at the company's offsite kitchen and followed up in early March. Two days after receiving a response from an FDA representative stating that the agency was reviewing her concerns, her employment was terminated. CaramelCrisp maintained it was unaware of the FDA communications and said discussions about eliminating her position had begun months earlier.

After her termination, CaramelCrisp sued Putnam alleging that she had taken company documents and trade secrets when she left the company.

District court proceedings. While the trade-secret litigation was pending, Putnam filed suit alleging retaliation under the FSMA and Illinois common law. The district court dismissed the common-law retaliatory discharge claim, concluding Illinois courts would not recognize the claim because Putnam had an adequate statutory remedy under the FSMA.

At summary judgment, the district court allowed one FSMA retaliation theory to proceed to trial: that Putnam was fired for complaints she made directly to company management. The court rejected her theory based on the FDA emails, finding no evidence that decisionmakers knew of those communications. A jury later returned a verdict for CaramelCrisp, finding that Putnam's food-safety complaints were not a contributing factor in any adverse action.

Trial-related issues dismissed. On appeal, Putnam challenged evidentiary rulings, the denial of a motion to bifurcate, jury instructions, the verdict form, and the quashing of subpoenas directed at FDA witnesses. The court declined to review those issues because Putnam failed to provide complete trial transcripts.

The court said assessing such claims required determining whether any alleged errors prejudiced Putnam, which could not be done without a full record of the trial evidence and testimony presented to the jury. As a result, those appellate challenges were dismissed.

FSMA claim based on FDA emails. The court affirmed summary judgment against Putnam's claim that she was terminated because of her anonymous FDA complaints. In addressing the FSMA, the court adopted a whistleblower-retaliation framework requiring a plaintiff to show protected activity, employer knowledge of that activity, an unfavorable personnel action, and that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.

Focusing on the knowledge requirement, the court said Putnam failed to identify who made the termination decision and failed to present evidence that any potential decisionmaker knew about the FDA emails. The court rejected her reliance on testimony from a plant superintendent as insufficient to support an inference that company management knew of her FDA complaint. Without evidence of employer knowledge, the court held, the FDA emails could not support a retaliation claim under the FSMA.

Trade-secret lawsuit theory. Putnam also argued that CaramelCrisp's trade-secret lawsuit constituted retaliation and that the district court failed to resolve that theory. The court disagreed, stating that the district court had addressed the issue when ruling on motions to bifurcate.

According to the opinion, Putnam's complaint did not allege that the trade-secret case itself was retaliatory. The court characterized her later effort to advance that theory as an attempt to amend the factual basis of her claim and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the change on the eve of trial.

Common-law claim. The court declined to revive Putnam's Illinois retaliatory discharge claim. Rather than decide whether the FSMA provided an adequate alternative remedy under Illinois law, the court concluded that the issue was moot in light of the jury's verdict.

The opinion explained that the FSMA's "contributing factor" standard requires a lower showing of causation than an Illinois common-law retaliatory discharge claim. Because the jury found that Putnam's food-safety complaints were not even a contributing factor in her termination, the court held that she could not later establish the higher causation standard required for the state-law claim.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed the remaining rulings.

The Case is No. 25-1516.

Judge: Maldonado, N.

Attorneys: Uche O. Asonye (Asonye & Associates) for Aisha Putnam. Julie L. Trester (Cozen O'Connor) for CaramelCrisp, LLC.

Companies: CaramelCrisp, LLC

Cases: Whistleblowers Retaliation EvidenceDiscovery Procedure Discharge StateLawClaims IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews