Discrimination Suit: Fired Worker Alleges ‘Machismo’ Culture

It’s one thing to have a workplace where morale is low and people just aren’t happy, but it’s quite another to have a work environment that crosses the legal line into unlawful discrimination.

As an HR pro, you obviously want to avoid both problems. But as a new court ruling shows, you can work to escape legal liability while simultaneously striving to improve the work climate overall.

New Supervisor, New Problems

Gricelda Ontiveros started working as a contractor at an Illinois Exxon Mobil facility in 2010, and she became a full-time employee five years later. Her job involved managing inventory, triaging customer complaints and handling sales orders.

In 2017, Pablo Villatoro became her supervisor. The court’s ruling says Villatoro had “a demanding management style.”

In Ontiveros’ mind, that was putting it too kindly. She said Villatoro made it impossible to finish her work during her regular assigned shift and refused to approve overtime.

When she called Exxon’s HR hotline in 2018, she added that she felt bullied in a “machismo” job environment. She also said he stared at her and winked at her, but she hedged when asked whether she thought the behavior was motivated by her gender.

Ontiveros wasn’t alone: Other employees also said it was hard to get all their assigned work done in an eight-hour shift.

Nonetheless, HR’s investigation resulted in a report that said neither Villatoro nor plant manager Raul Sanchez had violated any policy. It also noted that Villatoro’s department had “extremely low morale.”

Prior Performance Issues

Even before she made her internal complaints, Ontiveros’ work record was not stellar. She had been advised about proper service request reporting procedures. But after she complained, things got worse. She received additional warnings about subpar job performance, culminating in a 2019 meeting that was held to tell her that she could either begin a performance improvement plan or resign.

Exxon said Ontiveros responded to this news angrily and aggressively; in fact, the plant manager said he thought she was going to hit him.

At that point, Exxon had had enough; it terminated her employment in September of 2019.

Ontiveros was 42 when she was let go. She filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, age discrimination and retaliation. A lower court ruled against her, and the case reached a federal appeals court for review.

Appeals Court: No Proof of Illegal Discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) affirmed the ruling in Exxon’s favor.

First, the appeals court took a look at Ontiveros’ gender discrimination claim. To support this claim, Ontiveros pointed to three male workers who, she said, were similarly situated and treated better than she was.

But none of the men were suitable comparators, the court said. One was a contractor who did not receive performance reviews; a second was not treated more favorably; and there was evidence that the third was treated more favorably.

There just was not enough evidence to show Ontiveros was fired based on her gender, the appeals court said.

The appeals court also rejected Ontiveros’ claim of age discrimination. She said two younger workers were treated more favorably, but the others were contractors who were not adequate comparators because they were not subject to job performance reviews.

Employee Did Not Prove Retaliation

Finally, the appeals court decided that Ontiveros’ retaliation claims were properly dismissed. It said she failed to link her internal complaints to her declining performance reviews or her employment termination.

The fact that documented issues with her work increased after she complained did not prove unlawful retaliation, the appeals court said. It also rejected the allegation that retaliation could be inferred by the fact that Villatoro and Sanchez were not expressly advised not to retaliate against her. Finally, Exxon’s decision to withdraw that PIP option following the problem at the meeting did not show retaliation, it found.

The appeals court said Ontiveros “worked under difficult conditions in a toxic workplace.” But it also determined that she did not do enough to show unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

Discrimination and Retaliation: Key Takeaways

Here are a few key takeaways from this ruling.

First, the law does not require a perfect – or even a great – job environment. Things like low morale and supervisors who are equally tough on everyone do not form the basis for successful lawsuits. This may be only a small consolation for an HR department – like the one in this case – that was dealing with very low employee morale. But remember that fixing broken morale does not necessarily involve getting entangled in a legal mess.

Second, keep in mind that the law does not require supervisors to be soft. It may not be best for morale or long-term success, but it’s not illegal to be a tough, demanding supervisor – as long as there is no discrimination involved.

Third, when it comes to retaliation claims, remember that timing is very relevant – but is not the sole factor in deciding whether illegal retaliation took place. In this case, the employee tried to support her retaliation claim by noting that documented concerns with her work performance increased after she complained about overtime pay and alleged discrimination. But as the court noted, that additional documentation was added to an already existing pile. As a result, it did not strongly support the claim of retaliation.

Finally, the number of cases where problems leading to a lawsuit began when a new supervisor was assigned is staggering. When promoting an employee to a supervisory position or assigning an existing supervisor new subordinates, be sure the supervisor has received proper training regarding discrimination and is made aware of any special circumstances that may exist, such as a subordinate who is being provided a disability-related job accommodation.

Ontiveros v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-2645 (7th Cir. 8/5/25).