Garcia v. Noem: Seventh Circuit Clarifies “Some-Injury” Standard Post-Muldrow and Narrows Culture-of-Discrimination Evidence under Rule 404(b)

Introduction

Martin Garcia, a Mexican-American Federal Air Marshal, alleged that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subjected him to (i) national-origin discrimination, (ii) retaliation, and (iii) a hostile work environment after a supervisor made ethnically charged remarks during a 2018 pre-mission briefing. The district court granted summary judgment on discrimination and retaliation, allowed the hostile-environment claim to proceed, and—after excluding certain evidence—presided over a jury verdict for DHS. Garcia appealed only (1) the summary-judgment dismissal of his discrimination claim and (2) two evidentiary exclusions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in full, issuing a non-precedential order that nonetheless crystallises two points of law:

What, after the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, still does not amount to an “adverse employment action” under Title VII.
When “culture-of-discrimination” or “other-bad-acts” evidence is inadmissible under Rules 401, 403 and 404(b) in a hostile-work-environment trial.

Summary of the Judgment

Discrimination Claim: Affirmed summary judgment for DHS. None of the six incidents Garcia identified qualified as actionable “adverse employment actions,” nor did he tie any incident to bias against his national origin.
Evidentiary Rulings: The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding (a) a supervisor’s earlier “give me skin” remark to another employee, and (b) testimony that the Chicago field office was “more tolerant” of white employees’ misconduct than minorities’. Both were properly excluded under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice/confusion) and Rule 404(b) (propensity reasoning).
Result: Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment; Garcia takes nothing on appeal.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

a. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024)

The Supreme Court lowered Title VII’s threshold: an adverse action need not be “significant”—only produce some injury in employment terms or conditions. The Seventh Circuit applied this new, employee-friendly standard but held Garcia still failed to meet it; humiliation alone or mere requests to cooperate with an investigation do not alter job terms.

b. Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016)

Reiterated holistic approach: courts examine the totality of evidence for discriminatory causation rather than “convincing mosaic” labels. Garcia nonetheless lacked causation proof.

c. Cat’s-Paw and Comparator Cases

Woods v. City of Berwyn, 803 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2015) – Explains when a biased supervisor’s influence renders a decisionmaker an “unwitting dupe.” Garcia’s bare assertion that the offending supervisor “consulted” on performance reviews did not establish cat’s-paw liability.
Perez v. Thorntons, Inc., 731 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2013) – Plaintiff must link bias to the challenged decision; mere presence of biased remarks is insufficient.

d. Evidentiary Authorities

Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, 404(b)
Mason v. Southern Illinois Univ., 233 F.3d 1036 (7th Cir. 2000) – Harassing acts outside plaintiff’s awareness generally irrelevant to his hostile environment.
Manuel v. City of Chicago, 335 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2003) – When culture-evidence can be admissible (disparate-discipline claims)—contrasted with the present case.

2. Legal Reasoning

A. Discrimination (Title VII)

Adverse-Action Inquiry post-Muldrow
- Humiliation and decreased “mission effectiveness” = subjective feelings, no change in pay, rank, hours, or duties → no injury to employment terms.
- Requests for statements during an internal investigation = routine and non-disciplinary → no injury.
- Discipline imposed on someone else (letter of counseling vs. reprimand) = unrelated to plaintiff’s own employment conditions.
Causation
- Mentor/team-leader non-selection, leave miscoding, and lukewarm performance reviews were carried out by Supervisor Gengler, not the biased supervisor Schneider.
- No evidence that Schneider’s animus “tainted” Gengler or that Gengler independently harboured bias.

B. Evidentiary Exclusions

Prior “Give me Skin” Remark
- Outside Garcia’s presence → minimal probative value to his subjective hostility.
- Risk of unfair prejudice and jury confusion outweighed relevance (Rule 403).
“Culture of Discrimination” Testimony
- Would invite jurors to infer that because DHS allegedly discriminated against others, it must have discriminated here—exactly the propensity reasoning Rule 404(b) forbids.
- Not offered to prove intent/pretext in a disparate-discipline claim, so limited relevance.

3. Impact on Future Litigation

Post-Muldrow Landscape: Although Muldrow eased the adverse-action standard, Garcia shows that plaintiffs still bear a burden to identify objectively cognisable employment injuries.
Employer Investigations: Asking an employee to cooperate with EEO or internal investigations will rarely, by itself, meet even the relaxed threshold.
Evidence Strategy: Plaintiffs litigating hostile-work-environment claims must tether other-bad-acts evidence closely to their own experience or to an element genuinely in dispute (e.g., employer’s knowledge or failure to act). Broad “culture” narratives risk exclusion as propensity evidence.
Cat’s-Paw Doctrine: Bare allegations that a biased actor “consulted” on a later decision will not survive summary judgment; plaintiffs need hard evidence of meaningful influence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Employment Action: Any employment-related act that inflicts some injury—e.g., pay cut, demotion, schedule change. Post-Muldrow it need not be “significant,” but must affect tangible employment terms.
Rule 403 (Unfair Prejudice): Even relevant evidence can be excluded if it risks shifting the jury’s focus to emotion or improper considerations.
Rule 404(b) (Propensity Bar): Evidence of someone’s prior bad acts cannot be used solely to prove they have a bad character and therefore acted badly again.
Cat’s-Paw Liability: When a biased subordinate tricks or unduly influences an unbiased decisionmaker, the employer can still be liable.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Garcia v. Noem serves as a pragmatic roadmap for post-Muldrow Title VII litigation. Plaintiffs must still anchor allegations to objective employment injuries and must present a causal chain linking bias to those injuries. Simultaneously, the ruling reinforces trial courts’ gate-keeping authority to exclude broad “culture” or “other-acts” evidence when its probative value is slight and its prejudicial risk high. Although non-precedential, the order provides persuasive guidance: humiliation without material job impact is not actionable discrimination, and evidence of an employer’s alleged general discriminatory atmosphere will not be admitted absent a direct nexus to the plaintiff’s claims.