In Kaiser v. Acco Management Company, LLC, No. 23-CV-1539-JPS, 2026 WL 699601 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 12, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated her entitlement to a default judgment on her retaliation claim, arising from her termination, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
[T]o the extent her retaliation claim rests upon her termination, default judgment is proper and will be granted. First, Kaiser engaged in a statutorily protected activity. It does not matter whether the alleged discriminatory conduct reported—in this case Ogbuehi’s behavior—“was in fact a violation of the statute,” as long as Kaiser’s actions were “based on a good-faith and reasonable belief” that she was “opposing unlawful conduct.” O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, Kaiser wrote a complaint to Ogbuehi opposing his offensive sexual conduct and subsequent mistreatment of her. ECF No. 48 at 2. Her belief that Ogbuehi’s behavior violated Title VII was reasonable and in good faith—even if the behavior ultimately did not amount to a Title VII violation, there is a colorable argument that it was unlawful, as evidenced by the Court’s discussion supra Section 4.2.1. She directed the complaint to him in lieu of a human resources department, because ACCO did not have a human resources department, and most traditional human resources functions were performed by Ogbuehi’s romantic partner. Id. Reporting sexual harassment is the archetype of a statutorily protected activity. See, e.g., Alley v. Penguin Random House, 62 F.4th 358, 362 (7th Cir. 2023) (“Sexual harassment is indisputably an unlawful employment practice and thus, reporting allegations is a recognized protected activity under Title VII.” (citing Magyar v. Saint Joseph Reg’l Med. Ctr., 544 F.3d 766, 770–72 (7th Cir. 2008))).
Second, Kaiser clearly suffered an adverse employment action when her employment was terminated on December 27, 2021. Barker v. YMCA of Racine, 18 F. App’x 394, 398 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Adverse employment actions include termination ….” (citing Oest v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 240 F.3d 605, 613 (7th Cir. 2001))).
Finally, there is sufficient evidence to infer a causal link between the reporting and Kaiser’s termination. Relevant evidence of a causal link may include “suspicious timing, ambiguous statements of animus, evidence other employees were treated differently, or evidence the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action was pretextual.” Rozumalski v. W.F. Baird & Assocs., Ltd., 937 F.3d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Greengrass v. Int’l Monetary Sys. Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir. 2015)). Here, Kaiser sent her complaint to Ogbuehi on December 21, 2021. ECF No. 48 at 2. On December 24, 2021, Ogbuehi called an officewide meeting during which he berated Kaiser for submitting her sexual harassment complaint. Id. On December 27, 2021, Kaiser’s employment was terminated. Id. “[R]easonable, non-suspicious explanations for the timing” of the defendant’s conduct can overcome the inferences of retaliation flowing from proximity in time. Terry v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., 910 F.3d 1000, 1008 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Milligan-Grimstad v. Stanley, 877 F.3d 705, 711 (7th Cir. 2017)).
The court held that, since no competing explanations exist, the facts entitle plaintiff to relief.