Background
Hakeem Abayomi was hired as a clinical pharmacist at the Department of Veterans Affairs facility in Hines, Illinois, in May 2015. He was the only African American pharmacist at the facility and was subject to a one-year probationary period. In November 2015, Abayomi received a “fully successful” performance rating. After a productivity concern was raised in February 2016, Abayomi improved his performance.
On March 7, 2016—approximately ten months into his probation—Abayomi filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging that his supervisor Grant Elliot engaged in disparaging treatment and retaliation based on race. Abayomi alleged that Elliot had used a southern accent to call him “What’s up, boy?” in a derogatory manner, told “Black jokes,” and imitated “Ebonics.” Beginning in early April, the Department began receiving anonymous reports of four medication errors allegedly made by Abayomi: incorrect heparin dispensation (April 8), incorrect verification of epoetin alfa dosage (April 11), dispensing insulin in injector pen form rather than vial form (April 12), and mislabeling an IV bag (April 13).
On April 19, a Weingarten investigation was conducted, during which Abayomi admitted to three of the four alleged errors. The next day, Abayomi participated in mediation regarding his EEO complaint and voluntarily withdrew it. On April 29—four days before his probationary period ended—the Department terminated Abayomi, citing “careless work performance” and failure to follow facility procedures, specifically referencing the April 8 and April 13 errors. Abayomi sued under Title VII alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that Abayomi failed to establish either a race discrimination or retaliation claim. On the discrimination claim, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that Abayomi could not show the Department’s stated reason for termination—the medication errors—was pretextual. Abayomi’s own admissions during the Weingarten investigation severely undermined his pretext argument: he admitted to “rushing” on the April 8 error, conceded responsibility for the April 11 and 12 errors, and could not definitively deny the April 13 mislabeling. The court rejected Abayomi’s argument that the Department selectively enforced its rules by comparing his treatment to that of other pharmacists who made errors, finding that the only comparator with sufficient evidence—Patrick Hammond—was not similarly situated because he had a different decision-maker, was not probationary when investigated, and actually contested and was mostly cleared of his alleged errors.
On the retaliation claim, the court rejected the Department’s argument that Abayomi’s voluntary withdrawal of his EEO complaint eliminated Title VII protection, holding that the filing itself—not resolution of the complaint—triggers statutory protection. However, the court found Abayomi failed to prove but-for causation between the complaint and his termination. Although the timing between the March 7 complaint and the April 29 termination could suggest causation, Abayomi presented no corroborating evidence of retaliatory motive. The court noted that Abayomi showed no performance issues before the complaint, the medication errors appeared approximately one month after filing, and Abayomi’s own admissions about committing the errors undermined any inference of pretext or retaliation. The court also rejected Abayomi’s underdeveloped “cat’s paw” argument—that Elliot’s alleged racist comments influenced the final decision-maker—finding it waived.