“No one really knows how the game is played,
The art of the trade,
How the sausage gets made…
We just assume that it happens
In the room where it happens.”
— Hamilton: An American Musical
Aaron Burr’s words in Hamilton capture a feeling many employees know all too well. You work hard, follow the rules, and then suddenly—something happens behind closed doors, and you are out of a job. Nobody really knows what happened “in the room where it happened,” and when there are no witnesses or video footage, your story can feel lost. It can feel like employment discrimination or wrongful termination, but is it?
That was exactly the problem in Ezequiel Rivera v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2025 WL 3124839 (7th Cir. 2025). Rivera was a utilities technician at a Nestlé factory in Wisconsin, where frozen pizzas were made around the clock. One night, he got into a fight with a coworker. Both men were immediately suspended, and both told very different stories about who started it. There were no cameras. No witnesses. Just two employees pointing fingers.
Faced with that uncertainty, Nestlé did what many employers do—it fired both men for violating its no-fighting policy. Rivera, who is Mexican-American, believed the decision was discriminatory. He filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and later sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging national origin discrimination and wrongful termination.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Nestlé. In simple terms, the Court ruled that while Rivera may have been wrongfully fired in a general sense, the firing was not unlawful under employment law.
What Actually Happened “In The Room Where It Happened”?
Rivera’s job involved overnight shifts at a Nestlé pizza plant. After midnight on February 26, 2023, he and coworker Michael Hirn got into a heated argument that turned physical. Rivera was injured in the fight and escorted out. Both were suspended pending an investigation.
When Nestlé investigated, it found itself in an impossible situation. Rivera blamed Hirn; Hirn blamed Rivera. There was no security footage, no eyewitnesses, and no third-party confirmation. The company concluded that since its policy strictly prohibited fighting—no matter who started it—both employees should be terminated.
Rivera argued that Nestlé should have believed him, not Hirn. But the Court emphasized that under employment law, fairness and legality are not the same thing. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics like gender, race/color, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, disability, age, and pregnancy. But Title VII does not prevent companies from making bad or mistaken decisions. Indeed, it does not stop angry or mean decisions. The law only steps in when those decisions are motivated by discrimination or retaliation.
Best National Origin Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
What does “Wrongful Termination” mean?
The term “wrongful termination” gets thrown around a lot, but legally, it does not mean what most people think. Many employees assume being wrongfully fired means being fired unfairly. But under employment law, the word “wrongful” only applies when the firing violates a statute, such as Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”).
That means an employee can be fired for wrong or bad reasons in the everyday sense—because of a misunderstanding, personality conflict, or poor judgment—yet still have no legal claim. A termination only becomes unlawful when it is based on discrimination, retaliation, or another protected factor.
In Rivera’s case, even if Nestlé made the wrong call about who started the fight, that mistake alone did not make the firing illegal. There was no evidence that Rivera’s national origin had anything to do with it. The Court’s message was clear: a firing may be unfair, but it is not wrongful termination under the law unless it is also discriminatory or retaliatory.
Best Wrongfully Fired Law Firm Blogs on Point:
What Does It Mean When Courts “Defer To Business Judgment”?
When a company makes a personnel decision, even one that seems harsh or unfair, courts generally do not second-guess it. Judges call this deference to an employer’s “reasonable business judgment.” The idea is that employers—not courts—run workplaces.
The Seventh Circuit explained that “who started the fight is irrelevant.” What mattered was that Nestlé had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing Rivera: enforcing its policy against workplace fighting. Rivera could only win if he proved that this reason was pretextual—that it was not just wrong, but dishonest.
Pretext means the employer’s explanation is a cover story, not the truth. It’s when an employer claims to have one reason for firing an employee but the real reason is something illegal—like employment discrimination or retaliation. The Court held that “nothing about the fight or investigation suggests that Nestlé was dishonest.” Without proof of pretext, the Court deferred to Nestlé’s decision.
This principle exists because courts are not “super-HR departments.” They are not there to decide whether a company made a good choice, only whether it made a lawful one.
Best Wrongful Termination Attorney Blogs on Point:
What If My Employer Just Believes The Other Person?
In many workplace conflicts, someone gets believed, and someone does not. That can be devastating—especially when you know the truth but have no way to prove it. Yet, under the law, employers are allowed to believe one person over another as long as they do so in good faith.
Even if Nestlé believed Hirn instead of Rivera, the Court would still likely uphold the decision unless Rivera could show pretext—that the company’s reason was not honest. As the Court explained, it is not enough to prove that the employer was wrong; the employee must prove that the employer was lying to cover up discrimination.
When there is no witness, no video, and no paper trail, courts usually defer to the employer’s honest assessment—unless the employee can show that “what happened in the room” was not what the company claims.
Best Race Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Can Discriminatory Comments By Coworkers Help Prove Discrimination?
Rivera pointed to one incident in which a coworker told him not to speak Spanish at work. That comment was rude, offensive, and completely unacceptable. But it still did not prove that Nestlé’s decision to fire him was motivated by national origin or race discrimination.
The Court noted that the coworker who made the remark “was not involved in the decision to fire Rivera.” This detail was critical. To prove employment discrimination, an employee must connect the bias to the actual decision-makers. Courts call this the “cat’s paw” theory—you must show that the biased person influenced or participated in the firing.
A random coworker’s comment, no matter how ugly, usually is not enough unless that coworker played a role in the disciplinary or termination process. The Seventh Circuit concluded that since the rude comment did not come from anyone who made decisions about Rivera’s employment, it could not show discriminatory intent.
Best Hostile Work Enviornment Attorney Blogs on Point:
What Should I Do If I Was Wrongfully Fired Or Suspect Discrimination?
If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, faced employment discrimination, or treated unfairly at work based on your race, gender, age or other protected class, do not assume your employer’s version of events is final. Write down everything you remember—who was there, what was said, and when it happened. Save emails, texts, and policies that show how similar situations were handled. Small details can later expose bias or retaliation.
Then, contact an experienced employment lawyer who can analyze your employment discrimination case, identify inconsistencies, and determine whether there is evidence of actionable discrimination or pretext. Timing matters—evidence fades, and memories do too. Acting quickly can make all the difference.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, is one of the largest firms in the United States dedicated exclusively to employee rights. Because our practice focuses entirely on employment law, we have the experience, resources, and courtroom strength to take on major employers. We offer a free initial consultation and a no-fee guarantee—you pay nothing unless we win.
Our attorneys have decades of success fighting discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination cases. We know that being wrongfully fired is not just about losing your paycheck—it’s about losing your dignity. That’s why we fight with empathy and persistence for every client.
If your employer discriminated, retaliated, or acted unfairly, contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm today. Speak with a lawyer who will listen, care, and fight for you.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer:
This employment law blog provides general information about employment law, employee rights, employment discrimination, and wrongful termination. It should not be taken as legal advice. Every employment discrimination and wrongful termination case is different. If youa re facing race, national origin, disability or gender discrimination, you should consult with a qualified employment lawyer for specific guidance on your situation. No promises are being made, and reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. This content is a legal advertisement intended to help employees understand their rights and find the best attorney to represent them.