## Facts

- Octavia O. Harriston, a Black woman, worked for the Chicago Tribune Company from 1965 to 1989, primarily in advertising roles with satisfactory or better evaluations through the early 1980s.
- In 1984, she transferred to EEO/Employment Manager in the Employee Relations Department, a higher-graded position in which she handled hiring, recruiting, EEO reporting, and discrimination charges.
- The EEO/Employment Manager position was not eligible for the Tribune’s Management Incentive Fund, a bonus plan available to certain management employees.
- After workplace disputes and negative performance evaluations, the Tribune offered Harriston a Senior Sales Representative position in the Retail Advertising Department, which she accepted.
- Harriston resigned in 1989 and sued, alleging race and age discrimination, retaliation for protected activity, constructive discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; she also sought to represent a class of Black employees allegedly excluded from management.

## Issues

1. Whether Harriston stated a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on a denied promotion.
2. Whether the alleged workplace conduct supported an Illinois claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. Whether class certification was properly denied where Harriston sought to represent Black employees allegedly excluded from management positions.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Title VII and ADEA claims, including theories based on incentive eligibility, demotion/transfer, retaliation, and constructive discharge.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court in full.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the § 1981 claim because the alleged promotion did not create a “new and distinct relation” between employee and employer under controlling law at the time.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged conduct did not meet Illinois’s “extreme and outrageous” standard.
- The court affirmed denial of class certification because Harriston was not a member of the proposed class and delayed seeking certification.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on Title VII and ADEA claims for lack of evidence supporting discriminatory or retaliatory motive, demotion, race-based exclusion from the incentive plan, or constructive discharge.

## Legal Principles

- Under pre-1991 § 1981 doctrine, a promotion supports a § 1981 claim only if it would have created a “new and distinct relation” between the employee and employer.
- Illinois intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.
- A class representative must be a member of the class and must pursue certification without undue delay; denial of certification is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- To defeat summary judgment under Title VII or the ADEA, a plaintiff must produce evidence permitting a reasonable inference of unlawful motive or pretext, not speculation.
- Constructive discharge requires working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal of Harriston’s § 1981 and emotional distress claims, denial of class certification, and summary judgment on her Title VII and ADEA theories because the promotion theory fell outside § 1981 as then interpreted, the alleged conduct was not legally outrageous, Harriston could not represent the proposed class, and the record lacked evidence of discrimination, retaliation, demotion, incentive-plan bias, or intolerable conditions amounting to constructive discharge.


Harriston v. Chi. Tribune Co., 992 F.2d 697 (7th Cir. 1993)