Background
Hakeem Abayomi, a clinical pharmacist at the Department of Veterans Affairs, sued alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after being fired during his probationary period. Abayomi claimed he was terminated due to racial bias and in retaliation for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint against his supervisor. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department, finding Abayomi could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or prove that the employer’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual.
The court’s reasoning
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Abayomi failed to show the Department’s reason for termination—careless work performance and failure to follow procedures—was pretextual. Abayomi admitted to multiple medication errors, including dispensing incorrect dosages and labeling errors, which the Department cited as the basis for firing him. The court rejected Abayomi’s comparator argument, noting that the other pharmacists he cited were not similarly situated due to differences in decision-makers, probationary status, and the nature of the errors. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court held that while a withdrawn complaint remains protected activity, Abayomi failed to prove a but-for causal connection between the complaint and his termination given the admitted errors and lack of corroborating evidence of retaliatory motive.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that employers may terminate probationary employees for documented performance failures without violating Title VII, even if the employee has recently filed a discrimination complaint. It clarifies that withdrawn complaints remain protected activity but does not shield employees from termination if legitimate, non-pretextual reasons exist.