Reuben Haley v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 3, 2023 *
Decided February 6, 2023
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1932
REUBEN HALEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 19 C 5333
Virginia M. Kendall,
Judge.
O R D E R
Reuben Haley, a former department manager at Urban Outfitters, Inc., appeals
the summary judgment against him in this suit asserting claims of sex discrimination
and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 22-1932 Page 2
district court determined that Haley failed to introduce sufficient evidence to support
his claims. We affirm.
In reviewing the entry of summary judgment against Haley, we recount the
record in the light most favorable to him. See Hackett v. City of South Bend, 956 F.3d 504,
506 (7th Cir. 2020). Haley’s claims arise from his former employment at Urban
Outfitters, a clothing retailer, where he managed one department at the downtown
Chicago store from 2016 to 2018. Haley oversaw sales in the men’s department and
trained sales associates, but when asked he also assisted the private security guards
who monitored the store’s entrance. At times in late 2016 and early 2017, he was asked
by the store’s manager Susan Oliver to stand by the door and assist security. On two
such occasions, Oliver specifically referred to Haley’s gender. These were not the only
times Haley helped with security; he says “it became an assumed role” for him, as other
colleagues also sometimes asked him to stand by the door. Additionally, on account of
Haley’s security duties, he was assigned to more closing shifts than opening shifts,
which he preferred because they afforded “more uninterrupted time” to perform his
managerial duties.
Haley was covering the closing shift on March 3, 2017, when the store was
robbed. During the incident, he was pepper sprayed, requiring medical attention.
Afterward, Haley raised concerns with Oliver about being assigned security duties only
on account of being a man. He told her he felt unsafe when he was the lone manager
present during closing shifts. Shoplifting, it turns out, was a recurring problem at the
store, and in late 2017 another department manager reported that suspected shoplifters
had threatened to stab or mace her.
Meanwhile, Haley’s supervisors were beginning to perceive problems with his
job performance. Haley disputes some of their assessments, but he concedes that in
December 2016, he was issued a written warning for speaking on his cell phone during
his shift, in violation of company policy, and for failing to lock the store’s safe properly
overnight. And then twice in the following months, in February and October 2017, he
was the subject of complaints that colleagues filed with Oliver over his conduct at work.
According to the complaints, he reportedly interrupted them during customer calls,
yelled at them, and behaved “aggressively” toward suspected shoplifters. Haley denies
that he acted aggressively toward the shoplifters but did not dispute that he was
characterized this way in his colleagues’ complaints. On October 27 and November 1,
2017, Oliver held consecutive counseling sessions with Haley to discuss the complaints
and his performance. According to Oliver, Haley used an “elevated tone” when
responding to her criticism. At these sessions, Haley reiterated his dissatisfaction with

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 22-1932 Page 3
his additional security duties, telling Oliver that they should not fall to him simply
because he was a man and that they caused him to be underutilized at work. Haley
disputed whether Oliver’s evaluation of his work performance was accurate, but he did
not dispute that the counseling sessions occurred or Oliver’s assessment of his tone.
While working the opening shift a few weeks later, on December 2, 2017, Haley
left shipment boxes scattered on the sales floor after the store had opened to customers.
Additionally, he disappeared during his shift from the sales floor and left it
unsupervised. The following day, he was assigned to cover the closing shift but failed to
complete a walk-through of the store and other required tasks. As a result of these
problems, Oliver issued Haley a written warning as well as a 60-day final warning—
meaning that a future infraction could lead to his discharge from the company.
On January 9, 2018, Haley was involved in a confrontation with a group of
suspected shoplifters who had entered the store. Oliver went to the sales floor to
address them. According to Oliver, Haley was pacing around the floor in a nervous and
“aggressive” manner, causing “the biggest commotion on the sales floor.” But Haley
maintains that, while Oliver addressed the shoplifters, he just stood behind the cash
register alongside the other department managers. Tensions escalated, and one of the
suspected shoplifters tried to tase Oliver. Police eventually arrived to defuse the
situation.
Two weeks later, on January 25, 2018, Urban Outfitters fired Haley. The district
manager, who was responsible for the decision, cited Haley’s multiple disciplinary
infractions, his inability to receive criticism professionally in the counseling sessions
with Oliver, and Oliver’s overall evaluation of his poor job performance.
Haley sued Urban Outfitters under Title VII. He first asserted that the company
engaged in reverse sex discrimination by requiring him to assume additional security
duties, assigning him to primarily closing rather than opening shifts, and eventually
firing him because he was a man. He also asserted that his employers fired him in
retaliation for his complaints about the security duties, particularly after the pepper-
spray incident.
The district court entered summary judgment for Urban Outfitters, concluding
that Haley was unable to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination or retaliation
under Title VII. With regard to his claim of sex discrimination, the court determined
that no reasonable juror could find that his assignments to security duty and to closing
shifts were adverse employment actions; that even if Haley’s firing was an adverse
action, his employer had ample evidence of its honestly held belief that he had not
satisfied his employer’s legitimate expectations, given his substantial disciplinary

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 22-1932 Page 4
record in the preceding months; or that Urban Outfitters treated him worse than any
similarly situated female colleague with a similar disciplinary record. As for his
retaliation claim, the court ruled that Haley had not produced evidence for a juror to
infer that his complaints over security duty were causally linked to his firing.
On appeal, Haley first asserts that Urban Outfitters discriminated against him
based on his gender. Tracking the framework created in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973), to establish a prima facie case on his reverse-sex-
discrimination claim, Haley needed to introduce evidence that: (1) background
circumstances could show an inference that Urban Outfitters had reason to discriminate
invidiously against men, or that there was something “fishy” about the facts at hand; (2)
he met his employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse employment
action; and (4) he was treated less favorably than similarly situated female employees.
Bless v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 9 F.4th 565, 574 (7th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted).
Haley first argues that the district court overlooked evidence—specifically his
deposition testimony and that of Oliver’s—that he suffered adverse employment
actions when he was required to work security, with attendant safety risks; assigned to
closing shifts more frequently than female department managers; and eventually fired.
He also disputes the court’s conclusion that he failed to meet his employer’s legitimate
expectations, citing positive feedback he had received from his supervisors before the
fall of 2017.
We agree with the district court that Haley’s discrimination claim fails at the
prima facie stage, because he has not created a question of fact over whether he was
meeting Urban Outfitters’ legitimate expectations. The evidence in the record supports
Urban Outfitters’ assertions that Haley’s managers had honestly held beliefs that Haley
did not perform his duties satisfactorily as a department manager: The record contains
evidence that supervisors warned Haley repeatedly for not completing required tasks
during his shifts, that colleagues submitted complaints about his behavioral issues at
work, and that supervisors perceived that he failed to accept critical feedback about his
work or improve his performance after receiving the criticism. Haley disputes these
contentions. It is not the court’s task, however, to evaluate whether the employer’s
purported reason for the adverse employment action was correct, justified, or even if it
was fair. We look only to see if the employer honestly believed those reasons. Igasaki v.
Illinois Dep’t of Fin. & Pro. Regul., 988 F.3d 948, 958 (7th Cir. 2021) (internal citation
omitted).
Haley relatedly contends that the district court undervalued the evidence in his
deposition testimony that his security duties and closing-shift assignments were

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 22-1932 Page 5
adverse employment actions. One type of a materially adverse employment action
redressable under Title VII is a change in an employee’s work environment that alters
the workplace conditions in a humiliating, unsafe, or otherwise negative way. See
O’Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir. 2004). But as the district court rightly
explained, no reasonable jury could conclude that Haley’s additional assignments
amounted to adverse actions. Haley did not introduce sufficient evidence to suggest
that these assignments altered his work conditions to his detriment when compared to
his colleagues’ experiences. Indeed, safety risks were a hazard experienced by other
employees who did not cover security. One department manager, for instance,
reportedly was threatened by shoppers with mace or even a stabbing. And on another
occasion, Oliver was nearly tased by a shoplifter on the sales floor. As for Haley’s
preference to open rather than close the store, no jury could infer from his evidence that
he was objectively disadvantaged by working the closing shifts. See Herrnreiter v. Chi.
Hous. Auth., 315 F.3d 742, 744–45 (7th Cir. 2002).
Haley next contests the entry of summary judgment on his claim that he was
fired in retaliation for complaining about his security duties. He argues that the district
court overlooked his deposition testimony that he received increasingly negative
performance assessments; was assigned to additional, undesirable closing shifts; and
was eventually fired after he began complaining about the security assignments.
The district court appropriately concluded that Haley could not make out a
prima facie case of retaliation. Significantly, he introduced no evidence that his
complaints about his employer’s purported sex discrimination motivated his
supervisors’ decision to fire him. See Baines v. Walgreen Co., 863 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir.
2017). Haley has not presented evidence of a causal connection between his complaints
about his security duties and his eventual discharge from the company. He does not call
into question, for instance, Urban Outfitters’ evidence that his extensive disciplinary
record justified his firing—the multiple warnings for failing to open and close the store
properly, for inappropriate behavior, and for poor job performance. Haley speculates
that he was fired in retaliation for making complaints to Oliver, but speculation about
retaliatory motives cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. See Devbrow v.
Gallegos, 735 F.3d 584, 588 (7th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --