Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01814/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01814-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted December 12, 2016*

Decided December 12, 2016 

Before 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1814 

IFTIKHAR AHMED MEMON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WESTERN TECHNICAL COLLEGE, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Western District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 14-cv-581-jdp 

James D. Peterson, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Iftikhar Ahmed Memon appeals the grant of summary judgment against him in 

this employment-discrimination suit asserting that Western Technical College denied 

him an interview for an associate-dean position on the basis of his race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

 

*

 We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because 

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral 

argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 16-1814 Document: 20 Filed: 12/12/2016 Pages: 4
No. 16-1814 Page 2 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 

29 U.S.C. § 623(a). We affirm. 

Memon, a 46-year-old man who describes himself as Asian, American-Pakistani, 

and Muslim, applied in 2014 for the “Associate Dean-General Studies” position at 

Western Technical College in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The web posting for the position 

listed several requirements, including a Master’s Degree, full-time teaching experience, 

and “occupational” experience (supervisory experience preferred); preferred candidates 

also would have “additional training in higher educational leadership.” Memon 

submitted an online application with his resume and transcripts, which showed that he 

holds Master’s degrees in education and agricultural economics and that he worked as 

a tutor for middle- and high-school students from 2008 to 2014. He also directed an 

English learning center in Pakistan teaching English as a second language part-time 

from 1986 to 1996 and lectured at Sindh Agricultural University Tando Jam in Pakistan 

for at least two years between 1994 and 1999. Memon had no additional training in 

higher-education leadership. 

Memon was one of 47 applicants. He, along with 44 others, was rated “minimally 

qualified” by a “selection team” of seven administrative and faculty employees. The 

selection team then then winnowed the list to four, based on six criteria that included 

training, experience, and written materials. Memon was not selected to interview. His 

supervisory experience was considered weak, and he had no training in highereducation leadership. His cover letter was also described as “inferior as to quality, 

containing typographical errors, and not directed to the position for which he was 

applying.” The four applicants invited to interview included a dean at a technical 

college; a high-school principal with more than ten-years’ experience; a highereducation administrator from Switzerland; and a high-school administrator with 19-

years’ experience, much of it supervisory, who also taught a “hybrid graduate course in 

curriculum and instruction” at UW-Stevens Point (she eventually got the job). 

When Memon learned that he was not selected to interview, he sued, asserting 

that the College’s failure to interview and hire him amounted to “mass passive racism.” 

Memon argued that the selection team must have inferred his race, color, national 

origin, and religion from his submitted materials, which reflected his work and 

educational background in Pakistan and listed his religion as Islam. He also contended 

that the College discriminated against him based on his sex and age. 

Case: 16-1814 Document: 20 Filed: 12/12/2016 Pages: 4
No. 16-1814 Page 3 

The district court granted summary judgment for the College, concluding that 

Memon failed to provide “direct” evidence of discrimination or evidence that raised an 

inference of discrimination under the “indirect method” of proof as set forth in 

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Regarding Memon’s attempt 

to prove discrimination under the “indirect method,” the court found that he failed to 

provide evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to find that he was more qualified or 

that the College’s reasons for not interviewing him were pretextual. 

Memon’s brief on appeal is difficult to parse, but he first seems to challenge the 

district court’s conclusion that he failed to provide evidence of his superior 

qualifications. He points to the court’s statement that it could not say “as a matter of 

law” that the College was “correct about its assessments” of its preference that 

applicants be trained in leadership in a college setting. Memon, however, overlooks the 

court’s subsequent observation that “even assuming that defendant erred in concluding 

that [two of the applicants] met this preferred [higher-education leadership] 

qualification while plaintiff did not, the error alone does not prove pretext.” As the 

court explained, the College had “other reasons” to conclude that Memon was not as 

qualified as the two applicants in question—namely that Memon had comparably 

“weak or non-existent” supervisory experience, that the selection committee had 

regarded his cover letter and resume as poor and unfocused, and that he neither had 

nor was in the process of completing a doctorate. Even if the selection team 

misunderstood or incorrectly evaluated the credentials, a mistake does not prove 

discrimination “so long as the decision-maker honestly believed the non-discriminatory 

reason.” Liu v. Cook Cnty., 817 F.3d 307, 316 (7th Cir. 2016). 

Second, Memon asserts that he has “new evidence” that shows that the College’s 

decision was discriminatory—Memon’s own computations disputing the number of 

hours specified by each applicant as their experience for various jobs and training 

activities. But these computations do not call into question the conclusion, correctly 

reached by the district court, that the College reasonably discounted Memon’s 

qualifications relative to the other candidates’ credentials. See Riley v. Elkhart Cmty. 

Schs., 829 F.3d 886, 894–95 (7th Cir. 2016); Liu, 817 F.3d at 316. 

One note of clarification. In its discussion of Memon’s proof of discrimination 

under the direct method, the district court stated that Memon could support his claim 

by constructing a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence. This phrase, often 

used by this court but intended merely as a metaphor to supplement unhelpful direct 

and indirect methods of proof, has been misunderstood and misapplied, and we 

Case: 16-1814 Document: 20 Filed: 12/12/2016 Pages: 4
No. 16-1814 Page 4 

recently reiterated that it is not to be treated as a legal requirement. See Ortiz v. Werner 

Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016). The inquiry that must be considered, 

instead, is “whether the evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that 

the plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or other proscribed factor caused the . . . 

adverse employment action.” Id. Notwithstanding the district court’s understandable 

reference to the “convincing mosaic,” we believe that the court adequately evaluated 

the evidence as a whole and appropriately found it wanting. 

Finally, Memon has asked this court to recruit counsel for him. Like the district 

court, which denied Memon’s prior request for counsel, we agree that Memon was 

capable of litigating his own case. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 

We have considered Memon’s other arguments and none has merit. Accordingly 

the motion for recruitment of counsel is DENIED and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-1814 Document: 20 Filed: 12/12/2016 Pages: 4