Alma Sanchez v. El Milagro, Inc.

── Alma Sanchez v. El Milagro, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-3250 ALMA SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL MILAGRO, INC., doing business as EL MILAGRO, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:22-cv-01852 — LaShonda A. Hunt, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2025 — DECIDED MAY 27, 2026 ____________________ Before RIPPLE, KIRSCH, and LEE, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Alma Sanchez, invoking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), 1 claimed that she was sexually harassed by a coworker at an El Milagro tortilla factory. She further alleged 1 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-101 et seq. 2 No. 24-3250 that El Milagro had failed to investigate promptly her allega- tions. The district court granted summary judgment for El Milagro, and Ms. Sanchez brought this timely appeal. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court. I BACKGROUND 2 El Milagro manufactures and distributes tortilla products. It operates eight locations in Illinois and employs approxi- mately 500 individuals. At the Chicago manufacturing facility involved in this case, the production department has multiple lines. Employees on the “back line” use machinery to make tortillas; employees on the “front line” pack the tortillas. Since Ms. Sanchez joined El Milagro in July 2019, she has worked continuously in the production department on the second shift. Initially, Ms. Sanchez was a “passer.” In that role, she verified the quality of newly produced tortillas and passed satisfactory items down a conveyor for packaging and organization. Ms. Sanchez’s role later changed because a dis- ability prevented her from moving the fingers on her left hand, and she could not work a full eight-hour shift as a passer. Her supervisors, therefore, permitted her to work as a “free person.” 3 In this capacity, Ms. Sanchez substituted on 2 Because this appeal arises from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for El Milagro, we must take all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Ms. Sanchez. Whitaker v. Dempsey, 144 F.4th 908, 916 (7th Cir. 2025). 3 R.154 at 3. No. 24-3250 3 the production line and spent the remainder of her shift per- forming sweeping and cleaning duties. Because her supervisors did not require that she work on the production line for a full eight hours, at least eight of her coworkers began to express discontent about her accommo- dation. At one point (the timing is not clear from the record), they collected signatures with the intent of petitioning El Mil- agro to terminate Ms. Sanchez’s employment. The record is unclear as to whether this petition reached El Milagro’s man- agement, but Ms. Sanchez reported her coworkers’ comments to Arturo Brito, the second shift supervisor in the production department. Brito took two actions in response. On October 1, 2019, he wrote a report to El Milagro’s Human Resources (HR) department. He also raised the issue during a regularly scheduled pre-shift team meeting for the production depart- ment employees. After Brito wrote his report to HR, El Mil- agro provided a formal designation to Ms. Sanchez as a “free person.” 4 Ms. Sanchez relates that although her co-workers’ adverse comments decreased for a while,