{"id":3012,"date":"2026-06-10T12:55:36","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T16:55:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3012"},"modified":"2026-06-10T12:55:37","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T16:55:37","slug":"seventh-circuit-affirms-summary-judgment-for-tortilla-manufacturer-el-milagro-in-sexual-harassment-suit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/06\/10\/seventh-circuit-affirms-summary-judgment-for-tortilla-manufacturer-el-milagro-in-sexual-harassment-suit\/","title":{"rendered":"Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment For Tortilla Manufacturer El Milagro In Sexual Harassment Suit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Gregory Tsonis, and George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em>: <\/strong>On May 27, 2026, in Sanchez, v. El Milagro, Inc., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14984 (7th Cir. May 26, 2026), the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion <\/a>that affirmed a district court\u2019s decision granting summary judgment in favor of tortilla manufacturer El Milagro, Inc. (\u201cEl Milagro\u201d) for claims of sexual harassment in the workplace in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (\u201cTitle VII\u201d) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (\u201cIHRA\u201d).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opinion fully vindicated the Company\u2019s defenses, and clarifies that a prompt and thorough investigation coupled with appropriate action to bring harassment to an end are crucial to avoid liability under sexual harassment law. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2022, Plaintiff Alma Sanchez filed a Class Action Complaint against her employer, El Milagro, Inc. (\u201cEl Milagro\u201d), a tortilla manufacturer and distributor of tortilla products, alleging a sexually hostile work environment in violation of the IHRA and, subsequently, Title VII.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff alleged she joined El Milagro in July 2019. Plaintiff claimed that in 2020, co-worker Francisco Gutierrez sexually harassed her by \u201cinappropriately touching her three times,\u201d although the Seventh Circuit\u2019s opinion noted that Plaintiff\u2019s version of events changed in numerous ways over time.  Id.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the subsequent statement to Human Resources that Plaintiff submitted after the third alleged incident, Gutierrez \u201cinappropriately touched [Plaintiff] first in October or November 2019, then in March 2020, and finally in August 2020.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*4-5.  Her Complaint, however, alleged that \u201cGutierrez touched her first in May or June 2020, then in July 2020, and finally in August 2020.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*5. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to her first alleged incident of harassment, Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint asserted that Gutierrez \u201cintentionally \u2018rubbed his genitals\u2019 against her buttocks as he passed her on the production line and then continued to walk away.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  In her deposition, however, Plaintiff testified that \u201cshe believe[d] Gutierrez purposefully touched her because \u2018there were many ways for him to pass through without touching [her],\u201d that he did not \u201ctouch her for long because \u2018he made it look like he was passing by,\u2019\u201d and when she felt the contact and turned around \u201c[h]e had already passed.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  In her later statement to Human Resources, Plaintiff wrote that Gutierrez \u201csaid sorry\u201d but at her deposition, she testified that Gutierrez \u201cturned around and stare[d] at me like watching and saying \u2018oops.\u2019\u201d  Id. <\/em>*5-6. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff alleged she verbally reported this incident two hours later to Supervisor Arturo Brito, which Brito denied.  Id. <\/em>*6.  In her HR statement, Plaintiff \u201cstated that although she mentioned this incident to Brito, she did not tell him Gutierrez\u2019s name.\u201d  At her deposition, however, Plaintiff claimed that \u201cshe \u2018specifically told Brito that Mr. Gutierrez had rubbed his genitals on my buttocks\u2019\u201d but, when asked outright, she \u201cagreed that she did not share Gutierrez\u2019s name with [the supervisor] when she reported the first incident.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  No Human Resources report was made about this incident at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff also asserted Gutierrez \u201csexually harassed her for the second time in July 2020\u201d and claimed that he \u201cgroped her buttock with his hand.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*6-7.  Plaintiff contradicted herself about whether and when she reported this incident.  In her HR statement, she wrote that she \u201ccould not have reported the incident because the factory had been permanently shut down because of the pandemic, but later claimed in the lawsuit that she did report the harassment to Brito the day after it happened.  Id. <\/em>*7.  Plaintiff alleged that she informed Brito about this incident, but no complaint about this alleged incident was sent to El Milagro\u2019s Human Resources department.  Id. <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third incident occurred on August 29, 2020, and Plaintiff contended that \u201cGutierrez touched her buttocks for \u2018a short time,\u2019 or \u2018a few seconds\u2019 while she was stooping down to put down boxes that she was holding.\u201d  Id. <\/em> In her written statement to HR, Plaintiff claimed that \u201cGutierrez touched her buttocks with one hand\u201d  but asserted during the lawsuit that \u201cGutierrez groped her with both hands when she bent over to put down a box that she was carrying.\u201d  Id. <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After reporting the third incident to Brito, Plaintiff submitted a written statement to Human Resources describing the three incidents.  Gutierrez\u2019s statement claimed he accidentally touched Plaintiff while packing tortillas and apologized.  Id. <\/em> Plaintiff later testified that she \u201chad not seen anyone else experience sexually harassing conduct at any time during her employment at El Milagro.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>Plaintiff also alleged subsequent verbal harassment by other coworkers, but Plaintiff did not tell Brito or El Milagro\u2019s HR the names of those individuals.  Id. <\/em>*9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court granted El Milagro summary judgment on Plaintiff\u2019s claims.  It also ruled that Plaintiffs\u2019 class action claims could not be certified. Plaintiff appealed the district court\u2019s decision on her individual claim to the Seventh Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, affirmed the district court\u2019s decision granting summary judgment in favor of El Milagro and fully vindicated its position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to the controlling legal standard, the Seventh Circuit first concluded that while Title VII and the IHRA do not contain identical language, \u201cboth this court and Illinois state courts consistently state that the analytical standards are the same.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*9.  Thus, \u201c[t]o constitute actionable<\/em> sexual harassment, the activity \u2018must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the [the victim\u2019s] employment and create an abusive working environment.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*10.  While noting that \u201cphysical acts are considered \u2018more severe than harassing comments alone,\u2019\u201d the Court also noted that \u201cphysical harassment lies along a continuum just as verbal harassment does.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turning to the merits, the Seventh Circuit noted an employer is liable under the IHRA and Title VII \u201conly if it was negligent in controlling working conditions.\u201d  To prove such negligence, the Seventh Circuit explained Plaintiff must establish two points: (1) that El Milagro had \u201cnotice or knowledge of the harassment,\u201d and (2) that El Milagro \u201cdid not take \u2018prompt and appropriate corrective action reasonably likely to prevent harassment from recurring.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*16. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assuming that Plaintiff reported the first two incidents to Brito, as she claimed, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiff could not establish El Milagro\u2019s knowledge of the first two incidents of alleged harassment.  Based on the record evidence, the Court reasoned that \u201cwhat she told Brito led him to believe that she was complaining of accidental touching that happened because the production lines on which she and Gutierrez worked had close quarters.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *21.  As a result, the Seventh Circuit concluded that \u201c[w]e do not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude from [Plaintiff\u2019s] deposition testimony, or any other evidence in the record related to her reporting of the first two incidents, that she gave Brito \u2018enough information to make a reasonable employer think that there was some probability that she was being sexually harassed.\u2019\u201d  Id. <\/em>*20-21. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to the third incident, all three judges agreed that investigation and corrective measures taken by El Milagro\u2019s Human Resources department were sufficient.  The Seventh Circuit noted that \u201c[a]n HR employee interviewed [Plaintiff] and Gutierrez separately,\u201d \u201cHR concluded that the events described by [Plaintiff] could not be substantiated,\u201d and that El Milagro \u201cprovided [Plaintiff] with a letter, dated September 16, informing her that the case was closed and that it had told Gutierrez, in a \u2018call of attention\u2019 letter, to immediately change his behavior toward her.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*21-22.  The Seventh Circuit also determined that \u201c[a]lthough El Milagro did not interview any witnesses, [Plaintiff] did not identify any.\u201d  Id. <\/em>*22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the \u201cprompt investigation\u201d was \u201cthe hallmark of a reasonable corrective action\u201d (id.<\/em>) and that \u201cEl Milagro\u2019s investigation shows that it \u2018took the harassment seriously and took appropriate steps to bring the harassment to an end.\u2019 . . . [i]t had in place a viable and appropriate mechanism for reporting the misbehavior.\u201d  Id. <\/em>  A jury could not reasonably conclude, the Seventh Circuit held, that \u201cEl Milagro was negligent in fulfilling its responsibilities in responding to the situation.\u201d  Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, as to alleged verbal harassment that occurred after HR investigated, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiff \u201cdid not report to anyone the names of the people who made the harassing comments that she overheard after the investigation concluded so El Milagro could not investigate them.\u201d  Id<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s opinion clarifies what constitutes proper notice in alleged incidents of sexual harassment and reasonable corrective measures taken when an employer is properly on notice, including prompt investigations to bring alleged harassment to an end. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Employers should evaluate their sexual harassment policies and practices to ensure that reporting mechanisms, documentation, and investigation process are sound and that reports of harassment are communicated promptly to those responsible for investigating them.  A thorough investigation and quick implementation of reasonable corrective measures can often insulate employers from liability under either Title VII or the IHRA. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Gregory Tsonis, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 27, 2026, in Sanchez, v. El Milagro, Inc., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14984 (7th Cir. May 26, 2026), the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that affirmed a district court\u2019s decision granting summary judgment in favor of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment For Tortilla Manufacturer El Milagro In Sexual Harassment Suit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,8,96],"class_list":["post-3012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discrimination"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":8,"user_id":577,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gtsonis","display_name":"Gregory Tsonis","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/tsonisgreg-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Tsonis","first_name":"Gregory","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":"Read Gregory's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Schaller","first_name":"George","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/georgeschaller.html","description":"Read George's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3012","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3012"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3012\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3012"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}