In Simple v. Walgreen Company, the Seventh Circuit, which encompasses Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin, demonstrates that employers providing conflicting or inconsistent reasons as to why an adverse employment action was taken against an employee should expect to fail on Summary Judgment. In that case, Plaintiff, a black assistant store manager of Walgreens, was offered a job of Manager in several Walgreens stores in the Kankakee, Normal and Peoria, Illinois areas. Plaintiff declined the offers as the stores were in "socially economically challenged areas with a high shrink," which means a gap between expected and actual profits due to shoplifting. Walgreens' demographic tracking records indicated that the average annual income of the customers of the Kankakee, Normal and Peoria stores was less than $40,000 per year and more than 40 percent of the customers were black. At a later date, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Walgreens hired a white individual ("Jonland") as manager of the store in Pontiac. The customers of that store had an average income between $40,000 to $60,000, and more than 80 percent of the customers were white. This store was more desirable to manage than the Kankakee, Normal and Peoria stores that the Plaintiff had been offered because the store was more profitable (the store manager bonus is based upon the profitability of the store). It was undisputed that the Plaintiff was more qualified for the position than Jonland. The manager of the store where the Plaintiff was an assistant told the Plaintiff that the Pontiac store was possibly "not ready to have a black manager."

Plaintiff sued Walgreens for racial discrimination (failure to promote). The District Court dismissed the matter, and Plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and stated that a reasonable jury could find that Walgreens did not offer Plaintiff the store manager position in Pontiac, gave it to the lesser experienced Jonland because of race, and that Walgreens wanted to steer Plaintiff to a store in a predominantly black, lower income neighborhood. The Court noted that Walgreens could not provide a consistent explanation for its failure to promote the Plaintiff over Jonland. In its opinion, the Court noted that Walgreens' inconsistencies are suggestive of pretext, evidence of discrimination, and reinforce other evidence of racial motive.

Lesson for Employers: To reduce liability with regard to discrimination issues, employers should be consistent in their reasons for making an adverse employment action against an employee. Employers should also have a strong Equal Employment Opportunity policy in place, and train management on the importance of said policy.