Lust v. Sealy, Inc.

383 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a sales representative who has been employed by D since 1992. Her supervisor, Scott Penters, regarded her highly. In 2000 an opportunity opened up for promotion to 'Key Account Manager' in Chicago, the key account being a mattress retailer called Bedding Experts. The appointment would have represented a significant promotion for P, who had repeatedly expressed to Penters her avid desire to become a Key Account Manager. Instead, the job went to a young man. Two months later, after P filed her discrimination claim with the EEOC, Sealy offered her and she accepted a Key Account Manager's position in the Madison office. P presented evidence that Penters had a history of making sexist remarks to Lust, such as 'oh, isn't that just like a woman to say something like that,' or 'you're being a blonde again today,' or 'it's a blonde thing.' Once when she expressed an interest in a promotion even though she had just gotten married, Penters was surprised and asked her 'why Jerry [her husband] wasn't going to take care of' her. Penters admitted that he didn't consider recommending P for the Chicago position because she had children and he didn't think she'd want to relocate her family, though she hadn't told him that. P had told him again and again how much she wanted to be promoted, even though there was no indication that a Key Account Manager's position would open up any time soon in Madison. Penters' superior, Al Boulden testified that he had passed over P for the Chicago position because he thought her deficient in interpersonal skills and unlikely to want to move to Chicago, given the number of 'X''s in her relocation chart. It was Penters who recommended P's male competitor for the promotion, and although Boulden testified that he considered others for the position, including Lust, the jury could have inferred, from Boulden's testimony that West 'was the only one Mr. Penters served up' and having received Penters' recommendation he 'did not have to' interview anyone else for the position, that Boulden had given great weight to Penters' recommendation. At trial, D objected to the exclusion of three memos that Boulden wrote when P complained to him that she was being passed over for discriminatory reasons. In the memos, he said that he hadn't promoted her because of deficiencies in her interpersonal skills and--inconsistently--that he was planning to promote her soon. P got the verdict and D appealed.