Walker v. Abbott Laboratories, 04-3119.

Decision Date29 July 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-3119.,04-3119.
Citation416 F.3d 641
PartiesDennis WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Patrick M. Ouimet (argued), Sarles & Ouimet, Woodstock, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey Piell (argued), Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BAUER, POSNER, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The district judge granted summary judgment for the defendant in this suit charging racial discrimination in employment in violation of federal law. The plaintiff, Walker, who is black, is a National Accounts Manager (i.e., a sales manager) in the Hospital Products Division of Abbott Laboratories, the defendant. Walker was at salary grade 18. Two new positions as NAMs in that division opened up, but Abbott decided that someone appointed to one of these positions could, if his or her qualifications warranted, be given a salary grade of 20 rather than 18 although the duties would be the same. Walker wanted one of those jobs so that he could get the higher salary, but instead both jobs went to other people, one of whom was a white male named Smith. Walker claims, first, that Smith was ineligible for the job because the job posting stated that applicants must have a bachelor's degree, which Smith did not and so he must have been preferred for an invidious reason; and second, that Abbott's contention that Walker was ineligible for the job because he already was a NAM is spurious.

Abbott's position illustrates a tendency of some lawyers to pile on arguments without worrying about their consistency. On the one hand, Abbott argues that it was not required to adhere to the terms of the job posting. On the other hand, it argues that Walker was ineligible because someone who was already a NAM could not apply for one of the new positions even though they paid more. This makes it seem that Abbott complies with its personnel rules only when it wants to.

Indeed so. And there is nothing wrong with that. Unless a rule is part of the company's contract with its employees, the company is free to create exceptions to it at will. Rules by definition do not make a perfect fit with all the circumstances to which they apply; if they did, they would not be rules, but standards. A rule abstracts from particular circumstances, and if one of the excluded circumstances is salient in a particular case there is pressure to recognize an exception. A well-managed company will not make exceptions to its personnel rules promiscuously because that will generate ill will among the employees; they will feel they're being subjected to arbitrary treatment, which nobody likes. Wilbert E. Scheer, Personnel Administration Handbook 314-15, 965-69 (3d ed.1985); Lin Grensing-Pophal, Developing a Personnel Manual 2 (1993); "HR101 Seminar: Consistency Is Key to Successful Human Resources Management," Business Voice Archives (Mar.2002), www.njbia.org/bvmar02.htm; "Tackling Discrimination and Promoting Equality—Good Practice Guide for Employers," ACAS, http:// www.acas.org.uk/publications/B16.html. But neither will a well-managed company adhere to its personnel rules with a rigidity blind to circumstances that may make the rule occasionally wholly inapt. "People in supervisory positions are not doing their best for the company if they are content to administer rules. Fairness, consistency, and demonstrated interest in employee problems are the backbone of supervisory morale building. . . . [N]o set of written policies should become a straitjacket on management thinking." Scheer, supra, at 315, 965.

Smith had only an associate's degree from college, but it was a degree in medical technology and he had 20 years of experience in the medical products industry. He was already at salary grade 19, supervising a sales team, and before being appointed a NAM was rated in the top one percent of sales managers in the Health Products Division. Walker, in contrast, though he indeed had a bachelor's degree (but had majored in political science rather than in anything to do with business or the medical field), had been working for Abbott for only six years and had not achieved a rating comparable to Smith's. He does not deny that his all-round qualifications for a higher salary grade were inferior to Smith's.

Which should end the case right there. When the better-qualified white worker is selected, and there is no evidence indicating racial discrimination, the employer is entitled to summary judgment. Malacara v. City of Madison, 224 F.3d 727, 730-31 (7th Cir.2000); Mason v. Continental Illinois National Bank, 704 F.2d 361, 364 (7th Cir.1983) ("no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Rogers v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 1, 2006
    ...from the presentation of the case. See, e.g., United States v. Mahoney, 247 F.3d 279, 282 (D.C.Cir.2001); Walker v. Abbott Laboratories, 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2005); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir.2006). The more troubling aspect of the argument is its resort to the ......
  • Gwendolyn B. v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 6, 2021
    ...there are none." Fifth Third Mortg. Co. v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 692 F.3d 507, 509 (6th Cir. 2012). See also Walker v. Abbott Laboratories, 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Mahoney, 247 F.3d 279, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2001). In the end, again, what matters is evidence. Diagnoses ......
  • Orienti v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 7, 2013
    ...folly of including baseless arguments in briefs since they actually detract from the presentation. See, e.g., Walker v. Abbott Laboratories, 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2005); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508–09 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Brocksmith, 991 F.2d 1363, 1366 (7th Cir.1......
  • Mason v. Carolyn W. Colvin,1 Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 29, 2014
    ...statement and unavailing arguments seen all too often in briefs are pointless and undercut other arguments. Walker v. Abbott Laboratories, 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.2005)(decrying the tendency of some lawyers to pile on arguments); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2006); ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • SSR 96-7p: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • August 18, 2014
    ...App. D.C. 417, 247 F.3d 279, 282 §1007 Social Security Disability Advocate’s Handbook 10-276 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Walker v. Abbott Labs., 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2005); Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2006). The more troubling aspect of the argument is its resort to the ......
  • SSR 16-3P, superseding SSR 96-7p: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claimss (Effective March 28, 2016)
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook Content
    • May 4, 2020
    ...of the case. See, e.g., United States v. Mahoney , 345 U.S. App. D.C. 417, 247 F.3d 279, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Walker v. Abbott Labs ., 416 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2005); Rehman v. Gonzales , 441 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2006). The more troubling aspect of the argument is its resort to th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT