Background
Aisha Putnam, CaramelCrisp’s former Director of Research and Development, alleged that she repeatedly reported food-safety and quality-control problems at the company’s Garrett Popcorn Shops operation. She also anonymously emailed the FDA about alleged violations in early 2019. CaramelCrisp terminated her employment two days after the FDA responded that it was reviewing the concerns.
Putnam sued under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and Illinois common law. The district court dismissed the state retaliatory-discharge claim and granted partial summary judgment on the FSMA theory based on the FDA emails, concluding that Putnam lacked evidence that the relevant decisionmakers knew of those emails. A jury later rejected her remaining FSMA theory—that internal complaints to management contributed to adverse action—and returned a verdict for CaramelCrisp.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit dismissed Putnam’s trial-related appellate challenges because she did not provide complete trial transcripts. Without a record showing the evidence and testimony presented to the jury, the court could not assess prejudice from challenged evidentiary rulings, FDA subpoenas, bifurcation, jury instructions, or the verdict form.
The court affirmed summary judgment on the FDA-email theory. It held that an FSMA plaintiff must show protected activity, employer knowledge, an unfavorable personnel action, and that the activity was a contributing factor in that action. Putnam offered no evidence that anyone who made, or could have made, the termination decision actually knew of her FDA emails. The court also upheld the refusal to add a theory that CaramelCrisp’s trade-secrets suit was retaliatory, treating it as an untimely de facto amendment of the complaint. Finally, it affirmed dismissal of the Illinois claim because the jury had already found that Putnam’s food-safety complaints were not even a contributing factor in her termination—a finding that necessarily foreclosed the higher causation showing required for common-law retaliatory discharge.
Key Takeaways
- An FSMA retaliation claim requires evidence that the employer knew of the protected activity; speculation or constructive-knowledge arguments without supporting evidence will not suffice.
- An appellant challenging trial rulings must provide a record adequate to show prejudice, including necessary trial transcripts.
- A jury’s rejection of causation under FSMA’s lower “contributing factor” standard barred relitigation of causation under Illinois’s more demanding retaliatory-discharge standard.
Why It Matters
The decision supplies the Seventh Circuit’s framework for FSMA retaliation claims and emphasizes that knowledge by the relevant decisionmaker is indispensable to causation. It also illustrates the practical importance of preserving a complete appellate record when seeking review of trial-management and evidentiary decisions.
For employers and whistleblowers alike, the ruling confirms that an employee’s protected report cannot support a retaliation claim without evidence linking the report to the personnel decision at issue.