The H onorab le G ary S. Feine rm an ofthe N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 1754 F LY NN H AN NE RS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . L ARRYT R EN T, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 3:0 9-cv-03 11 1-MPM-CHE

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge

. A RGUED D ECEMBER 2, 2011

— D ECIDED M AR CH 19, 2012

Befo re R IPPLEa nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd F EI NE RMAN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R IPPLE, Ci r c u i tJu dge . F l ynn H anners , a f or m erM ast er S er g ea nt wi th th e I l l i no i s S ta te Po l i ce ( “I S P” ), br o ught th is action i n th e d istri ct cou rt, alleg in g t ha t fel low I SP em plo yee s Lar ryTre nt, H ar ol d N el son , Lance Ad am s,2 N o. 11

- 1754

The subjec t l ine ofthe em ailw as “U p dated Sp ri ngfi el d A rea 1 B arb ies, ” an d the em ail itselfw as en titled “M attel rece ntly ann ounc ed the r el ea s e of li m i t ed- edi t i on Barbi e Doll s f or the Spr i ngfi el d m arke t
. ” R. 28

- 1 a t18
. The e m ai l i nc l uded the f ol l owin g:

’ Ch atham Barb ie ’ Thi s pr i nc es s Barbi e i s s ol d onl y a tThe G ab le s . Sh e co m es w ith an as so rt m en t o f K a te Sp a d e H a n d b a g s, a Lex us SUV, a l ong- hai re d f or ei gn dogna m ed Hone y, (co n tin u ed ...) Ric hard W oo ds and Leonard S tallw or th di scr i m i nated a g a i ns th i m be c a us e o fh i s r a c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f4 2 U. S

. C. §§ 198 1 an d 1983. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants, and M r. H anners now tim ely ap p e a l s . Fo r th e re as on s s etfort h in t h e fo ll owing opi ni on, we affirm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t.

I

B AC KGR OUND A . Facts 1. Th e Em ail O n Febr ua r y 4 , 2 00 8, M r . Hanne r s, the n a M as te rS er g ea nt i n the M edi ca i d F r au d Co nt r o lBur ea u o fthe I S P, s e nta n e mai ltha ti nc l ud e d p i c tur es a nd de s c r i pti ons ofel even fi cti ti ous Barbi e Dol l s t o si xteen fello w I S P em p loy ee s; M r. H an n er s s en t t h e e m ail us i nghi s I S P c o m put era nd e m ai lacc o unt
. Eachfi ct i ti o us 1N o. 11

- 1754 3

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 an d co oki e- c ut t erho us e. Avai l abl e with o r without tu m m y tuck an d f ace l i ft. W or k ah olic K en sold on ly i n c onj unc t i on with the aug m en t ed ve rs i on. ’R o c h e st e r B a rb i e ’ The m oder n day ho m em ake r Barbi e i s ava i l abl e with a For d W i nds t ar m i ni van and m atchi ng g ym out fi t
. Sh e g ets lost easily an d ha s no full-ti m e occ u p atio n. Tr affi c ja m m in g ce ll p h o n e so ld sep a ra te ly

. ’E a st S i d e B a rb i e ’ Th i s r e c e nt l y pa r ol e d Ba rbi e comes wi th a 9 m m h a nd

gun , a Ray Lew is knife, a Chevy w ith d a rk ti nted w ind ow s, an d a M e th L ab K it. T his m od el is only av ailab le after d ark an d m u st b e p aid f or in cash (p re ferab ly s m all, untrace able bil ls ) , unles s you are a co p , th en w e d o n ’t k n o w w h a t y o u ar e t a lk in g ab o u t.

’ Panther Creek Barbie’ T h i s y u p p i e B a rb i e c o me s w i th y o u r ch oi c e o fB MW c o n v e r t ib l e o r Hu mm e r H2
. I nc l ude d a r e h e r o wn Starbu cks cup, c reditcar d, and country cl ub m em bers hi p. Al s o a vai l abl e for thi s s etar e Sh al l ow K enan d Pr i vat e Sc hoo l Sk i pper . You w on’ tbe abl e t o a ff or d any of them

. T hi s B arb ie also co m es w ith h er o w n cre d it car d d eb t, car loan s and thre e m or tga g es. ’R i v e r t o n B a rb i e ’ This pale m od el com es d re ssed i n her own W rangler jean s t wo s i ze s t oo s m al l , a N ASCAR t
- s hi rt, an d Tw eety B ir d tatt oo on her s hould er. She has a s ix

- pack ofBu d L ight a n d a H ank W il li am s J r. CD s et. She c an sp it ov er 5 feet an d kick m u llet-hair e d K en ’ s bu tt (co n tin u ed ...)4 N o. 11

- 1754

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 w h en s h e i s dru nk. Purchase he r pic kup tr uck separat el y and ge t a Confederat e Flag bum per s ti cker absolute ly free! ’L a k e A r e a B a rb i e ’ T his co llag en inje c ted , b o-tox ed , rh ino p lastied B arb ie wea r s a l e o p a r d p r i n to u t fi ta n d dr i n k s c o s mop o l i t a ns whil e en t er t ai ni ng fri en d s . Pe rc oc etpr es c ri pt i on available as w el l as du plex on the l ake. Live- in partner Dr. K en ava i l abl e with n ew pr es c ri pt i on pad a nd Skipp er- on-the- si de. ’P a w n e e B a rb i e ’ T his tob acco -chew ing , b rassy -haire d B arb ie ha s a p air ofher ow n high- heel ed sandals w ith one b ro ken heel fro m the t i m e s he c has ed be er - gut t ed Kenoutof D ivernon B a rb ie ’ s house. H er e nsem ble i ncludes l ow- r i s e a c i d- was he d j e a ns, f a ke fi ng e r na i l s , a nd a se e-thro u g h h alter-top

. A lso av ailab le w ith a m ob ile hom e.

’ D ow ntow n Barb ie ’ Thi s dol l i s m ade ofac tu al t ofu. Sh e has l ong s t ra i ght br ownh a i r , a r c h- l e s s fe e t, h a i r y arm pi t s , n o m a ke up , and Birkenstocks w ith w hit e s ocks. She prefers that you cal l her W ill ow . She does not w ant or need a K en dol l , buti fyou purc has e t wo D ownt own Barbi es an d the option a l S ub aru w agon, you get a rai nbo w flag bu m per s ti cker for free. ’N o r th E n d B a rb i e ’ Thi s 16

- ye ar - ol d Barbi e now c om es w ith a s t ro l l eran d i nf antdol l

. Opti ona l ac c es s or i esi nc l ude a GED , bus (co n tin u ed ...)N o. 11

- 1754 5

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 pa s s , a nd Li nkCa r d. Ga ng s t a Ke n a nd h i s 1979 Caddy wer e ava i l abl e, butar e now ver y di ffi c ul tt o fi nd since th e ad d ition of the infan t. ’L e l a n d G r o v e B a rb i e / K e n ’ She’ s perf ectin every w ay. Com es w ith the old m oney Spr i ngfi el d pedi gr ee an d s m al l

- m i ndedne s s . Sh e bel ongs t o I l l i ni Count ry Cl ub, the Sa nga m o Cl ub, an d th e D A R . (O n ly av a ila b le in C a u ca sia n ). ’S o u th o f D o w n t o w n B a rb i e / K e n ’ T his v ersatile d oll can b e easily con v erted fro m B arb ie to K en b y sim p ly a d d ing or su b trac t i ng the m u ltiple s nap- on par t s . H eS he com es w i th h i s /he r own bai l bond car d an d crim ina l reco rd f or p ro st i tu tion an d p ossessi o n . H e S h e h a s a l so b e e n b a n n e d fr o m W a l g r e e n ’s a n d C V S f o r a t t e mp t i n g t o p u r c h a s e mo r e th a n t wo box esofe phe dri ne - c ont ai ni ng dr ugs i n o ne day. Id. at 19 -2 5 (im a g es o m itt ed ). dol lwas a c ar i catur e o fa ste re oty pica lwom an l i v i ngi n a n i de nt i fi ab l e a r e a i n a nd a r o un d S pr i ng fi e l d, Illino is. One ofthe or i gi nalr eci pie nts, S peci alA gent St acy C onn er, f orw ard ed the em ailto t h r ee ad d iti ona l I SP empl o y ee s, i nc l udi ng S er g ea nt Br en da Bur to n. Co ncer ned that the e m ai lm i ght ha ve been “a set up to se e how she w ou ld r eact as a supervi sor, ” R. 28- 1 a t 1 6, S e r g e a n tB u r t o n b r o u g h ti tto t h e a t t e n t i o n o fh e ro wn su p ervisor an d n o t ed that the em aill ikel y w as forw ar ded to herbym i sta ke.6 N o. 11

- 1754 On A pri l21 , 20 08, Captai n Sco tt Ric e, Com m an der o fZo n e 7, w h e r e S e r g e a n tB u r t o n w a s a s s i g n e d , c o mp leted a Com pla i nt A gainst Depart m ent M em ber ( “CA D M ”) fo r m a g ains t S pec i alAge ntCo nne r, a nd the c a s e wa s r e fe r r e d t o the I S P’ s E qua lEmpl o y men tOp

p ortu nity (“E E O ”) offi ce sh ortly thereafter. The e m ai la l so was b r o ughtt o the a tt en ti o n o fde fen dan t Ric hard W oo ds, wh o held t he posi ti on o fInvest i gat i ve Su p p or t C om m an d er an d w as in M r. H an n er s’s ch ain ofco m m and. Com m ander W oods shar ed the em ai lwith hi s ow n dir ect supervi sorand w i th Captai n Gordon Fi dle r, the chi efo fM r. H anners ’ s bu reau. Com m ander W ood s di re cted Captai n Fi dle r to open an invest i gat i on an d , i n p articu lar, to det erm ine w h eth er M r. H an ne rs w as i nd eed the so urce ofthe em ai l

. The em ai l a lso was bro ught to the att enti on of defe nd ants Col onelH ar old N el son, Deputy Dir ecto r ofthe Div i si on o fOperat i ons; Li eu te na nt Col o ne l Leo na r d S tal lw orth, Ass i st an t DeputyDi r ec to ro fS pec i alOpe r at i o ns a nd Li eu te na nt Col onelLance Ad am s, A ssi sta nt Deputy D irecto r of F i el d Ope r at i o ns . Al lo fthe de fen d ants e xc eptf o rLi eu tenant Col onelA dam s were i n M r. H anners ’ s di re ct ch ain o fc o m m an d a t th e ti m e th e emai li nc i den t too k pl ace. I n acco rdance w i th Com m an d er W oo ds’s i nstr ucti ons, C ap tain Fi dle r conta cted the Di vi si on o fInter nalInvesti gat i ons ( “DI I ”) to deter m ine th e app ro pri ate co urse o f act io n. On Apri l3 , 2 00 8, a s par t o fthe r epo r ting p ro c es s, C a p t a i n Fid ler filed a C A D M w ith D II re gar ding the e m ai lse nt byM r. H anners .N o. 11

- 1754 7 Aft err ev i ewi ngthe c o m pl aint, DI Ir efer r ed th e incide ntb ac kt o Ca pta i n F i dl erwi thi ns truct i o ns t o c o ntinue the i nv es ti g at i o n. Ca pta i n F i dl era sk ed Li eu te na nt She r y l A nd erson -M artin, M r. H an ne rs’s direct su p ervi sor, to hand l e the i nvest i gat i on. A s part of the invest i gati on, Li eutenant A nd erso n -M ar ti n conducted a s er i es of th re e in te rv iew s w ith ind ivid u als w h o h ad d ire c t k n ow ledge of the em ai l i nci dent: Se rg eant Bu rt on , Sp eci al Ag e n tC o n n e ra n d Mr
. Ha n n e r s . D u r i n ghi s i n t e r v i e w, M r. H an ne rs ad m itted to send ing the em ailto fell ow I SP empl o y ee s, i nc lud i ngS pec i alAge ntCo nne r . Af te rs he co m pl et ed th e i nv es ti g ati o n, Li euten an t Ander so nM ar ti n m et w i th Captai n Fi dle r to disc uss herfi nd i ngs and rec om m endati ons. Once the i ni ti ali nvest i gat i on w as com ple te, DI Ir esum ed contr olo fthe i nvest i ga ti on and i nfo rm ed C aptai n Fi dle r that the m att erhad been re fer re d to the EEO o ffi ce. Al th o u g h th e e x a c t t i mi n g i s n o t c l e a r f r o m t he re cor d, the EE O o ffi c e b e c a me i nv o l v e d in the i nv e s t i g ati on o fthe em ai li nci dent th ro u gh the subm i ssi on o f C ap ta inFid ler ’s C A D M . A m on g its oth er res p on sibi l i ti es , the EEO o ffi ce mai nt ains a n int erna lc o m p lai nt pr o ce ss , whi ch i nc l ude s o pti o ns f o r i nv es ti g at i o n and m edi ati on. Thi s co m plai nt pro cess , se t o ut i n a wri tte n I S P po l i cy, r equi r es a n e m pl o y ee fi l i nga c o m pl aint w ith th e E E O office to sign an intak e q u estionn aire th atpr o vi des a na r r at i ve of whato cc ur r ed an d ho w the al l eg ed ac tivi tyc o ns ti tu te s di sc r i m i na ti on, ha r as sment o r r e t a l i a t i o n. S uz a nn e Bo nd , Ch i e f o f the I SP E EO offi ce, te sti fi ed i n herdeposi ti on that a superv i soral so8 N o. 11

- 1754

At the s am e t i m e as the Barbi e Doll e m ail i nve s t i gat i on, the 2 EE O offic e al so had at le asttwo oth er ong oing inves ti gati ons i nvo lving i napp ropriat e em a ils s ent usi ng ISP com pu ter equipm ent. O ne of the cas es involved a D is tric t C om m and er w ho ha d sent to the oth er D istrict C om m an d ers a n e m ail tha tdepi c t ed a c ar t oonofa m an and a wom an i n a c ar . The m a n ha d a t r a di t i on a l s eatbe l t, whi l e the womanh a d a s ea tbel tthatwentove r he r l ap, s ho u ld er a nd m outh. A s ec ond em ail incid e n t inv olv ed a link to a v id eo tha t pe rtain ed to the prop er us e ofthe “F- w ord.” m ayr efera n inc i den t to the EEO o ffi ce b y s ubmi tt i ng a s ign ed C A D M th ro u gh D II. 2 A s p ar t o f th e in ve st iga tio n int o M r. H an n er s’s em ail, th e EEO o ffi ce c o nt ac te d a llo fthe e m ai lr ec i pi en ts , b ut n o n e o fth e s e i n di v i du a l s w a s w i l l i n gt o fi l e a c o mpl aint a g ains t M r . Hanne r s th atwoul d s ta te tha t he ha d b ee n o ffen ded bythe e m ai l

. H o wev er, dur i ng his interview w ith t h e E E O officer, M r. H an ne rs e v e n tu a l l y a d mi t t e d th a t s e n d i n g th e e ma i l wa s a n i mproper use of hi s I SP em ai l acco unt an d acknow l edged that he had r ecei ved tr ai ni ng o n EE O pol i ci es i n the past. Se rg eant Rober t S gam bel l uri, the E EO o ffi ceri n char ge of M r. H an n er s’s inv es tig at ion, con c lu d ed th at, “[w ]h ile the c onte nts o fthe em ailwere re l ate d to ra ce, se xual or ien ta tio n , pa re n ta l st at u s, p re gn an c y, fam ily re sp on sibi l i ti es, and the chara cter i sti cs o fge nd er, no perso n r e c e i v i n g th e e ma i l r e p o r t e d b e i n g o ffe n d e d b y i ts c o nte nt s. ” R. 28

- 2 at4 5. Not ab l y, he f o und tha t no ne o fthe i n d i v id u als w h o re c eiv ed th e e m ail b elie ve d th at“it i nter fer ed w i th [ hi s] work p er f or m ance o r cre ate d anN o. 11

- 1754 9

ISP p olic y P E R -009 , III.6. C p ro v id es: “C olo ne ls and their 3 Supe rvi s or s an d M ana ge rs wil l r ec ogni ze the i r ex pl i c i tr es pon- (co n tin u ed ...) i nt i m i dat i ng, ho st i l e, abus i ve o ro ffen si ve w orke nv i r o nm ent. ” Id. ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. S er g ea nt Sg am bel l uriultim ate l y c oncl ud ed that the invest i gat i on di d no t war r an t a ch ar g e o fho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm ent und erI SP pol i cy. Se rg eant Sg am bel l uri di d concl ud e, however, that th e emai l“ co nt ai ne d de r o g at o r y r efer en ce s to women, Afr i ca n A m eric an s, a nd o th erc at eg o r i es o fpe o pl e, a nd prese nted nega ti ve and dem eani ng st er eotypes ofthes e gr oups. ” Id. H e the refore dete rm in ed that M r. H an ne rs’s act of trans m itti ng t he cont en t of th e em ailto others usi ng an I SP co m pu te r an d em ai l, witho ut a busi ness r ea so n, was c o nt r ary t o v ar i o us I S P p oli ci es , i nc l udi ng PER- 00 9, whi chpr o vi des tha t t he I S P “ wi l le ns ur e m an age rs and su p er vi sor s r eco gni ze thei r re sponsibi l i ty f orcar ry i ng o ut t h e sp i ri t a nd i ntent ofthe EE O Progr am . ” Id. ( i nt erna lquo ta tio n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. Addi ti o nal l y, S er gea nt S gam bel l urideter m ined that the r esul ts of the inv estigation su p p orted cha rging M r. H an ne rs w i th vi ol ating se ver alRule s o fCondu ct perta i ni ng to m i suse ofI SP e quipm ent. C hief Bon d agr e e d w ith Sergean t Sgam belluri’ s fi ndi ngtha t M r . Hanne r s vi o l at ed I S P po l i cya nd fo rw ar ded to I SP Di re cto r Larr y Tr ent he r re com m endati on that M r. H anners be charg ed w i th vi ol atin g th e Rul es of Cond uct. Chie f Bond’s re com m endati on t o Dir ecto r Trent i ncl ud ed a c i tat i on to PER-00 9, I I I
. 6. C. The m em o- 310 N o. 11

- 1754

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 s ibi l i t y f or c ar ry i ng o utthe s pi ri t, as w ell as the i nt en t, of the EEO Pr ogr am , i nc l udi ng bu t n ot li m i t ed t o the EEO Pl an, a n d a c t i v e l y w o r k t o ad v a n c e th e p r o g r a m a mo n g th e e mployees they s up ervis e. ” R.28- 2 at 42. In add it ion t o SpecialAg en t Conner, Speci al A gent M ari 4 Rol ape an d Tro ope r M ar k Be agl es al s o wer e dis c i pl i ne d f or forw ard ing th e B arb ie D oll em ail u sing their IS P com p u ters. Spe c i al Agent Rol ape was c ouns el ed re gar di ng he r actions o ff o r w a r d i n g th e e m a i l fr o m h e r I S P c o m p u t e r t o h e r h o me com p u ter. Sp e c i a l A g en t C on ne r an d T ro op er B eag les pa rticip ated in th e settlem en t ag reem en t pr oce ss and ultim ately r e c e i ve d l e t t e r s o fr e pr i m a nd

. r an dum a l so i nc l ude d r ec om m en dat i o ns f o rdi sc i pl i ne f orthr ee othe r i nd i vi du al s who had fur therdi sse m i n ate d th e B arbie D ollem ail, i nc lud ing Sp ecial A gen t C onn er. 4 Dir ecto r Trent re vi ew ed the EE O offi ce’ s r ecom m endatio n s a n d d et er m in ed th atM r. H an n er s s h ou ld be d is c iplined i n acco rdance w i th Chie fBond’s re com m endati ons. H e then f or w ar ded the recom m endati ons to Co l o ne lNe l s o n a nd i ns t r uc t e d h i m t o “ a dvis e the EE O Offi ce what act i ons you have tak en i n re sp on se to th e ch ar g es i den ti fi ed ab o ve wi th i n 3 0 day s o fy o ur re cei pt ofthi s info rm ati on. ” R. 28- 2 a t 4 8.

2. T h e D is c ip lin ary R ev iew Bo ard An I S P o ffi ce rf ac i ngdi sc i pl i na r y action has the r i g ht to a ppea rb efo r e th e Di sc i pl i na r y Re vi ew Bo ar d ( “the Board”) , co m po sed o fthe Dep uty Di re cto rs , and toN o. 11

- 1754 11

Co lonel N el son, as D eputy Direc tor of the D ivis ion ofO pera- 5 t i on s , pa r t i c i pa t e d i n M r. H a nn e r s ’ s m e e t i ngwi th the Bo a r d. Lieutenant Co lonel Ad am s als o a ttended , but only as an observer. pr es en t hi s o wn per spe ct i ve on th e cas e. As pa r t o fthe p r oc es s, an offic er w h o t ak es fu ll res p on sib ility for h is a c t i o ns ma y ag r e e t o a s e t t l e men twi th the Bo a r d, a nd , i n doi ng so , r ecei ve a r educed d i sci plinarypen alty

. Prior to h is ap p earan ce before th e B oard , M r. H an ne rs wa s o ffe r e d a s e t t l e me n tb y C o l o ne l N e l s o n . I t s t e r ms w ou ld have r educed his suspensi on fro m thi rty days to ten to fi fteen d ays

— the s am e s uspensi on that Col o ne l N el so n was o ffer i ng to two o th er o ffi ce rs w ho w er e fa c in g s im ilar ch ar ge s. A lth ou gh th e o th er ind ivid u als ac c ep te d C o l on el N els on ’s s et tle m en t p ro p os al, M r. H an ne rs rej ecte d the p rop osed resolution. M r. H anners el ecte d t o appear bef or e the Board an d r ead fro m a prepar ed statem ent. Fo l l owing hi s a pp ear ance b efo re th e B oa rd , th e D ep u ty D ire c t or s u n an im ou sly recom m en d ed to Directo r T rent thatM r. H an ne rs r ec ei ve th e o r i g i na lthi r ty
- days us pen si o n. The y e xpress ed conce rn r ega rdi ng M r. H anners ’ s a pp ar ent l ack o fr e mo r s e . D i r e c t o rT r e ntac c e p t e d th e B o a r d ’ s r e c o mm en dat i o n a nd i m po se d a thi r ty
- days us pen si o n. 5

3 . Ra t i ng s Se s s i o n a nd Pr o mo t i o ns A s p ar t ofthe I SP e m plo yee pro m oti on pro cess , ea ch sw or n em plo yee r ecei ves an annualpro m oti onalr ating,12 N o. 11

- 1754

W hen a s w orn em ployee s eek s a p rom oti on, he m ust agree 6 to t ake a prom oti onal ex am inat ion and rece ive a j ob p erf orm anc e eva l uat i on. Dir ec t or Tr en tan d Col one l Nel son di d notat t en d the 7 ra t i ngs s es s i on. w hich i s given by th e e m p loyee’s direct su p ervisor. 6 Du ring the 2008 ra ti ngs ses si on, approxi m ate l y t h i rty i ndi vi dual s, i nc l udi ngM r . H anne r s, wer e to b e co nsi dered f or prom oti on fro m m ast erse rg eant to l i eutenant. Lie utenant And er son- M ar ti n w as M r. H anners ’ s r ate r f or20 08. Fo l l owing the usualpro toc ol, she m et with M r. H anners to go o verthe com ponents o fthe ra ti ngs proce ss. S he the n sco re d M r. H anne rs o n a scal e o f1 to 9 i n ni ne di ffer ent c ate gor i es and prel i m i nari l y c alc u late d hi s ag g r eg at e sc o r e as 68. P r i o rt o the r at i ng s se ss i o n, Lie u tenant A nd er son- M ar ti n i nquir ed as to w hether sh e sh o ul d t ak e th e emai li nc i den t i nt o a cc o untf o rpurpo se s o fr at i ngM r . Hanne r s’s job pe r f o r m an ce ; s he w as tol d that s he sho uld do s o. S he the re f or e a dj usted M r. H an ne rs’s aggregate sc ore accord ingly. H ow e ver, w he n sh e review ed her scores w ith th e othe r sup ervi so r s atthe r at i ng s se ss i o n, s ev er ali ndi vi dual s, i nc l ud i ngCo mm a nd e rWo o ds, sug g e s t e d tha tthe g r a de st i l l w as to o hi g h g i ve n the e m ai li nc i den t. Li eu te na nt 7 Ander so n- M ar tin e xpr es se d he rc o nc ern r eg ar di ngthe fur the rl o we r i ngo fMr
. H a nn e r s ’ s r a t i ngb e c a us e , a s i de fro m the em ai l, M r. H anners had p er f or m ed at a hi gh level th roug hou t the year. A t t h e ra tin gs se ss ion, L ieu te n an t A n d er so n -M a r tin fe l tth a tth e d i s c u s s i o n o fh e rg r a d i n gde c i s i o n b e c a meN o. 11

- 1754 13

Li eut en ant Col one l St al l worth t es t i fi ed at hi s d epos i t i on 8 tha t he in d eed f ou nd the B arb ie D oll em ail ina p p r o p riate and c oul d notbe l i eve thata s uper vi s or woul d s en d i toutor thi nk i twas funny. R. 22

- 7 at 19 ( St al l worth Dep. 22 )

. Addit i onal l y, he t es t i fi ed that, as an Af ri c an- Am er i c an, he f ound the em a il t o b e r a ci a lly o ffen siv e. Id. at 2 2 -2 3 (St a llw o rt h D ep . 25 -2 6 ). advers ar i aland that th e situati on was co m pound ed by the f a c ttha ts he wa s b e i ngc o ns i de r e d fo rp r o moti on to c apt ain. In w ha t s he de emed a di ffi cul t si tu at i o n, Lie utenant And er so n-M ar ti n ul ti m ate l y a gr eed to re du ce M r. H an ners ’ s g ra de to r efl ect the r eco m m endati ons give n by the o thersuperv i sor s. M r. H anners ther ef or e r ecei ved an a ggr ega te gr ade of54
. M r. H ann er s chal l enged hi s pro m oti on g ra de i n accor dance w i th I SP pro toc ol . The c hal l enge w as re vi ew ed by Com m ander W oo ds, wh o re com m en d ed that M r. H anners ’ s g ra de of54 be up hel d. Fu rt h er, thr ee o fM r . Hanne r s’ s su per i o r s, Ca pta i n Fidl er, Li eu te na nt Ander so n- M ar tin a nd Li eu te na ntCo l o ne lS ta l l wor th, afterco nsi deri ng the m er its of M r. H anners ’ s chal l enge, a l la g r e e d th a th i s g r a d e o f5 4 s h o u l d n o tb e r a i s e d

. As part ofthe proce ss, Li eutenant A nd er son- M ar ti n w as tas ked w ith wri ti ng a m em or andu m i n re sponse to M r. H anners ’ s co ntenti ons. Duri ng the dra ftin g o fher m em orandum i n re sponse to M r. H anners ’ s chal l enge, Lie utenant Col onelS tal l w or th , who had m ade hi s di sple asur e w ith the conte nt o fthe em ai lkno w n, i nfo rm ed Li e ut e na ntAnd e r s o n- M a r t i n tha t M r . Ha nn e r s ’ s g r a de woul d no t be i nc r ea se d abo ve a 5 4. Li eu te na ntAnder so n- 8 Ma r t i n c r e a t e d s e v e r a ld r a ft s o fth e me mo r a n d u m;14 N o. 11

- 1754

In h is com p lain t, M r. H an ne rs alleg ed tha t the d efend an ts 9 ret ali ated ag ains t hi m because ofhis polit ic al view s, i n violation of his righ ts un d e r t h e F i r st A m en d m en t. In h is brief in resp on se to the d efend an ts’ m otio n for su m m ary jud g m en t, M r. H anners conce ded thatthe re was i nsuffic ie nt e vidence fro m whi c h a j ur y r ea s onabl y cou ld c onc l ude thatthe defen dan ts v io lat ed his Fir stAm endm ent ri ghts. The d is tr ic t c ourt the refore c o n c lud ed tha t the d efend an ts w ere en titled to s um m ar y j udgm en tonM r. H ann er s ’ s Fi rs tAm en dm en t claim

. T his claim is no t at issue o n a p p eal. The d is tric t c ourt note d, and the parti es app ear t o agree, 10 tha tMr. Hanners i s a t t e m pt i ngt o pr ov e di s c r i m i na t i onby the di re c tm ethod o nl y. ea c h d ra ft w as rejec te d u n til it w a s d e e m e d to be su ffic ien tly “ge neri c. ” R. 31- 5 a t 4 ( A nd er son- M ar ti n Dep. 152- 53 ). A fte r th e ch alle n ge w as rev iew ed by th e in d ivid u als i n h i s ch ain o fc om m an d, i nc l udi ngCo l o ne lNel so n, M r. H anners ul ti m ate l y r ecei ved a prom oti on rating o f54
.
B. Dist r i ctCourtPro ceedi ngs M r. H anners fi l ed a c om pla i nt i n the CentralDis tr i ct ofI l l i noi s. A sse rt i ng cl ai m s ba sed upon 42 U
. S. C. §§ 1981 and 1983, h e all ege d that he was suspended and gr aded unfai rl y b ecause o fhi s pol i ti calvi ew s a nd hi s r ace. 9 A dd re ssing M r. H anners ’ s co nten tio n that the I SP had i mp o s e d s a n c t i o n s a n d g r a d e d h i m in a r a c i a l l y d i s c r i mi natory m anner, the dist ri ct c ourtdeter m i ned that M r. H anners had f ai l ed to es tabl ish a pri m a f aci e ca se o fr a c e di s c r i mi na t i o n b a sed o n the di r e c tme tho d. 10 T h e c ou rtex p lain ed th at, in ord er to e s t a b lish a c laimN o. 11

- 1754 15 und erthe dir ect m etho d, M r. H anners “ ‘ m ust hav e provi ded di re ct e vi dence of

— orsuffi ci ent c i rcum sta n tial evi dence to al l ow an infe re nce o f

— i ntenti onalr aci aldi scri m i nati on. ’ ” R. 38 at 24 ( quoti ng Mo n tgo me ryv . A m. A ir li nes, Inc. , 6 2 6 F
. 3 d 3 8 2 , 3 9 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) )

. T he cour t no ted thatM r. H anners di d not offerany adm i ssi o ns o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n o fthe k i nd tha t w ou l d c o ns t i t ut e d i r e c te v i d e n c e , b u tr a th e rr e l i e d u p o n c i r c u mst an ti ale vi den ce to advan ce hi s cl ai m . In r ev i ewing the c i rcum sta nti alev i dence offer ed by M r. H anners , th e cou rt noted that M r . H a n n e rs had f ail ed to com p are hi s thi rty- day suspensi on t o si m i l ar l y s i tuate d perso ns, i
. e. , the o th eri nd i vi dual s who ha d f o r war ded th e B arb ie D oll em ail. M r. H an n er s in st ea d co m p ar ed h is pu ni s hme ntt o tha to fe i g ht e e n i nd i v i du a l s , o nly thr ee ofwh om had m i sused I SP e quipm ent. A l lhad bee n in vo lve d in a c tiv itie s u n re lat ed t o t h e B arb ie D oll em ail. T he cou rt noted that the li st p rovide d by M r. H a n n e rs d id n ot iden tify any i ns tan ces of cond uc t d eem ed offensive for r e ason s of race, sexu al or ientat ion or gend er, nordi d i t ind i cate thatany ofthe ind i vi du al s l i ste d w er e no n-Caucasi an. The co urt ther ef or e co ncl ud ed that M r. H anners h ad “pro vi de[d] n o evi dence that em plo yee s outsi de the prot ecte d cl ass ( i.e. [ , ] non-C au casi ans) r ece i ve d s y st emat i ca l l y b et te rt r ea tmenttha n Ca ucasi an s such as H anners . ” R. 38 at 27- 28. N ex t, th e d istri ct c ou rt exp lai ne d that M r. H an ne rs co ul d “ al te r na ti ve l y s ho w di sc r i m i na ti o n b y e stabl i sh i ng
‘ a m b i g u o u s s t a t e m e n t s o r b e h a v i o r t o w a r d o th e re mplo yee s in the prot ecte d g ro u p thatta ken t oge theral l ow an i nfe re nce o fdi scr i m i natory intent. ’ ” Id. at 28 (quo ting16 N o. 11

- 1754 M o ntg o m ery, 62 6 F
. 3d at 39 3). The cour t a cknowle dged th a tMr
. Ha nn e r s “ t r i e [ d] t o c r e a t e a n i nfe r e nc e o fdi sc rim in at or y in t e n t b y a ss er tin g th at : th e e -m ail w ou ld n oth av e b ee n p ro b l em at ic if h e w er e a n A frican[ ] A m er i can; i rr egul ar i ti es [ exi ste d] in the in vesti gati on o fthe e- m aili nci dent; and H anners ’ [ s] superv i sor w as press ured t o re du ce Hanners’ [ s] gr ade wh en ass ess i ng hi s j ob perf or m anc e. ” Id. at 28. T he cou rt de term i ned, how eve r, that M r. H anners ’ s ass er tion that th e em ailw ou ld n ot ha ve bee n p roblem atic if he w ere Afr i can- Am er i ca n, di d “ no t m er i t m uchdi sc us si o n” because , witho ut any su p port i ng ev i dence, the ass er ti on am ounted to nothi ng m or e than “m er e s pec u lati on. ” Id. at 28- 29. The c o ur t th entur ne d t o the f ac ts s ur r o un d ing the in ve st iga tio n of th e e m ail in c id en t. T h e c o u r t a c kn ow ledged M r. H an n er s’ s co ntenti on that the I SP devi ate d fro m w ell-e s t a b l ish ed int er n al p olic y d u rin g th e in ve st igat i on o fthe em ai li nci den t b ecause ther e was nei ther a c om p lain an t n or a c om p let ed E E O in t a k e f or m . A lthough the co urt reco gni zed thatan e m plo yer ’ s departur e fro m i ts own i nter nalpolic ies m i ght s er ve as ci rcum sta nti alev i dence thatan e m plo ye r’ s s tat ed re aso n f oran a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on i s pre text u al, i t underst oo d the ca se l aw to r equi re “m or e than a dev i at i o n fr o m an em p l o y er ’ s i nt erna lpo l i cy ” al o ne inord er to w ith st an d su m m ar y jud gm en t. Id. a t 3 0. In a nye v e nt, the c o ur te xp l a i ne d tha tthe r e wa s n o devi ati on fro m I SP pol icy, despi te the fact that an i ntake questi onnai re neve r w as com ple ted, bec ause Cap tain Fi dle rN o. 11

- 1754 17 ha d s ubmi tt ed th e CA DM to DI I
. The c o ur t fur th erc o ncl ude d tha t M r . Hanne r s’ s as se r ti o n tha t th e wi th

dr awalo fthe i nv es ti g at i o n from Capta i n F i dl era nd L i e ut e n a n tA n d e r s o n - Ma r t i n w a s e v i d e n c e o fd i s c r i mi na ti o n was a t o dds wi ththe f acts
. T he c o ur t f o und th at th e inves tigation w as assign ed to Ca p tain Fidler’s offic e fo r th e lim ite d p u rp os e o f ve rify in g t h e o rig in of th e e m ail. Fi nal l y, the cour t turned to M r. H anners ’ s a sse rt i on th atth e d efe n d an ts im p ro p er ly h ad u se d th e e m ail in c iden t to i m p act hi s j o b per f o r m an ce r at i ngdur i ngthe 20 08 r at i ng s and pr o m o ti o ns pe r i o d. The c o ur t fi r ste xpl aine d tha t, a s M r . Hanne r s’ s su per vi so ra nd the p er so n ch ar ge d w it h g ra d in g h is job p er for m an c e, it w as Lie utenant And er son- M ar tin’ s co nd uct that was re l evantto M r. H anners ’ s di scr im i nati on cl ai m bas ed up on the r atings pr oce ss. The co urt concl ud ed that, d es p ite th e fa c t t h atL ieu te n an t A n d er so n - M a rt infelt press ure to re du ce M r. H anners ’ s r atin g on the basi s o f the e m ai li nci dent, ther e was no evi dence t h at she w as ord ered by any of t h e d e fe nd an ts to low er M r. H an ne rs’s gr ade. S eco nd , the cour t no ted t h at M r. H anners was p erm itted to challenge his grad e, an d th at C ap tain Fidler, Lie utenant And er son- M ar ti n and Lieute nant Col onel S t a l l w o r th u n a n i m o u s l y h a d d e c i d e d t o u p h o l d C o mm ander W oo ds’s r eco m m endati on that the gr ade not be r ai sed. The co urt ther efore concl ud ed that, bec ause M r . Hanne r s di d no t al l eg e any di sc r i m i na to r ya ni m us agai nstCa pta i n F i dl era nd Li eu te na ntAnder so nMa r t i n, Mr
. H a n n e r s “ wo u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d th e s a me gr ade r ega rdl ess o fthe Defe nd ants’ alleg ed ani m us. ” Id.18 N o. 11

- 1754

I n a ddi t i on, Mr. Hanne r s a s s e r t e d tha tthe de fe nd a nt s were 11 not ent itl ed to quali fie d im m unity. Because the dis tr ic t c ourt co nc lud ed tha t M r. H an ne rs d id no t estab lish a p rim a facie cas e f or dis cri m inat ion, and that the def endan ts , the refore , were e nt i t l ed t o s um m ar y j udgm en t, the c our td i d notc ons i der the i s s ue ofqua l i fi ed i m m uni t y. M r. H an ne rs also a sserted , i n h is M em or an d u m in O p p osi- 12 tion to Su m m ary J u d g m en t, tha t sum m ary j u d g m en t w ou ld vi ol at e hi s Se ven th Am en dm en tr i ghtt o a j ur y t ri al

. The d ist ri c tc our tc or re c t l y c onc l uded thatthe di s pos i t i on of M r . H an ne rs’ s case on a m otio n for su m m ary jud g m en t d id no t d ep ri ve him ofhis Seventh Am endm ent ri ght to a tr ial b y ju ry . SeeBu rks v. Wisc onsi n D ep’ tof Trans p. , 464 F. 3d 744, 75 9 (7th C ir. 20 06 ). T his issue a lso is no t raised on ap p eal. at3 5. The c o ur t th er efore g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t

11 f o r th e defen dan ts o n M r . H anne r s’ s §§ 1981 and 1983 cl ai m s. 12

II DI S C US S I ON A . St and ar d ofRevie w W e r evi ew a d istri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o gr ant a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo , co nstr uingal lthe f acts i n the light m ostf avo rabl e t o the no nm oving par ty, M r. H an n e rs . SeeCo

ff m an v. Indianapo lis Fire D ep’t, 57 8 F .3 d 5 59 , 563 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is pr o perwher e “the r e i s no g enui ne di spu te as t o a ny m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s en tit l ed to j ud gm ent a sN o. 11

- 1754 19

a m at te ro fl aw. ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a)

. “ A ge nu ine i ss ue ofm ate ri alf act ar i ses o nl y i fsuffi ci ent e vi dence favoring the non m oving p arty ex ists to perm it a j ury to re turn a ve rdi ct forthatparty. ” F a a s v . S e a rs , R o e b uc k & Co. , 53 2 F
. 3d 633, 64 0- 41 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( i nter nal quota

tio n m ar ks om itt ed ).

B. Race D i scr i m i nati on and the D i r ectM et hod ofPro of M r. H an n ers co ntends thathe ha s dem onst ra ted that ra ce was a m oti vating f acto r i n the deci si ons to suspend him fo r thi rty days and to l ower hi s pro m oti on ra tin g. I n h is v iew , th e d ist ric t c ou rtfailed to ap p ly the pr operst andard i n eva l uati ng wh etherhe ha d produce d s uffi ci en t ev iden ce t o a vo i d s um m ary j udg m en t un de rthe di r e c tme tho d. A pl ai nti ffpro ceedi ng under th e di re ct m etho d “m ust dem onst ra te a tr i abl e i ssue as to w hetherdi scr i m i nati on m oti vate d the adver se em plo ym ent a cti on. ” D avi s v. Ti meWar n e rC a b l eo

f S e . Wi s . , L
. P. , 65 1 F
. 3d 664, 672 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ); see also S h e e h a n v . Da i l y R a c i n gF or m, In c. , 1 04 F. 3d 940, 94 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)

. “A plainti ffpro c eedi ng ac cor ding to the di re ct m etho d m ay re l y o n t wo ty p e s o fe v i d e n c e : d i r e c te v i d e n c e o rc i r c um sta nti alev i dence. ” R udin v. Lincoln Land C m ty . C oll. , 42 0 F. 3d 712, 720 (7 th C i r. 20 05)

. “Di re ct e vi dence i s e vi dence which , i fb el i ev ed bythe t r i ero ff ac t, wi l lpr o ve the p articu lar fact in q ue stion w ithou t reli an ce u p on inference orpre sum pti on. ” Eil and v. Tri ni ty Hosp. , 15 0 F
. 3d 747,20 N o. 11

- 1754

S ee also Pl ai r v. E.J
. Brac h & Sons, Inc. , 10 5 F .3d 343 , 34 7 (7th 13 Cir

. 1 9 9 7 ) ( r e c og ni z i ng tha t i f a n e m pl oy e r s t a t e d that an em p loy ee w as d ischa rg ed “b eca u se he is b lack ,” that w ou ld b e d ir ec t e v id en ce o f d isc ri m in a tio n ); M oj i ca v. G annet tC o. , 7 F
. 3 d 5 5 2 , 5 6 1 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( a c k n o wl edgi ng as d i re c te vi denc e ofdi s c ri m i nat i on a m ana ge r’ s s t at em en t thatan em ployee w ould no t b e prom oted because she w as n o t “ a b la ck m a le ” ). 751 (7th Cir. 1998) (int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). 13

“ C i r c u ms t a n t i a le v i d e n c e o fd i s c r i mi n a t i o n . . . a l l o ws the t ri erof f act ‘ to inferi ntenti onaldi scr i m i nati on by the deci si onm ake r. ’ ” R udin , 420 F.3d at72 0 (e m p h as is in or i gi nal ) ( quoti ng R ogers v. City of C hi. , 32 0 F
. 3d 748, 75 3 (7 t h C i r. 20 03 )); se e also M ontgom ery v. A m . Airl ine s, Inc. , 626 F. 3d 382, 39 3 ( 7th C ir. 2010)

. W e hav e e xplained th a t“ [ t ] h e r e l e v a n tc i r c u ms t a n t i a le v i d e n c e i n d i s c r i mi na ti o n c as es o r di na ri l y c o ns i st s o fi ndi ca to r s sh o wi ng w hatma y b e ‘ the r e a lmo t i v a t i ngf o r c e f o re mpl oym ent d ecis i ons. ’ ” M o ntg o m ery, 6 26 F
. 3d at3 93 ( quo ting C of f m an , 5 7 8 F
. 3 d a t5 6 3 )

. We fur the rh a v e de s c ribed th e circum stan tial evid en ce cap able of su stainin g a j ury ver dictas a “co nvi nci ng m osa i c o fci rcum sta nti al evid en ce . . . that point [s] d ir e c t ly to a discrim inatory re aso n f orthe em plo yer ’ s a cti on. ” D avi s v. Con- Way Transp. Cent. Ex pre ss, Inc. , 368 F.3d 7 7 6 , 783 (7th C ir. 2004 ) ( al ter ati ons i n or i gi nal ) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itted ). M r. H an ne rs cha lle n ges th e d istri ct cou rt’s r el ianc e upo n thi s l an g ua g e an d a ss er ts tha t, b y us i ng i t, the c o ur t appl i ed a he ight en ed st an dar d t o theN o. 11

- 1754 21 evi dence a pla i nti ffm ust o ffer und erthe dir ect m etho d i n or der t o avo i d sum m ar y j ud gm ent. I n Sylves te r v. SO S C hildren’s Villages Ill inois, Inc. , 45 3 F. 3d 900 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , w e c lari fi ed that the “ m osa i c” l an g ua g e, fi r stus ed bythi s co ur t i n Troupe v . M ay D epart

m ent Sto re s Co. , 20 F. 3d 734, 73 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) , was not i nt e nd e d t o “ pr o mul g a t e a n e w s t a nd ar d.” Sy lvester, 45 3 F. 3d at 904. Ind eed, we consi ste ntl y hav e e m plo yed t h is langu age to articu late the p rinciple tha t, for a pla in tiffpro ceedi ng under the di re ct m etho d to defe at sum m ar y j ud gm ent usi ng ci rcum sta nti alev idence, “[ a] l lthati s r equi re d i s e vi dence fro m wh i ch a ra ti onal tr i ero ff ac t co ul d r ea so nabl y i nferthat t he de fen dan t ha d [ ta k ena n a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n a gainst] the pla i nti ffbec ause the l att erwas a m em bero fa prot ecte d cl ass . ” Trou pe, 20 F. 3d at 737. W e there f or e c an not accep t M r. H an ne rs’s argu m en t t ha t t he d istri ct cou rt i nc orr ec t l y i d e n t i fi e d a n d a p p l i e d th e s t a n d a r d f o re v al uating a pla i nti ff’ s pro ffer ed ci rcum sta nti alev i dence. W i th thi s b a c k g r o un d, we turn t o a n e v a l ua t i o n of the e vi dence upon w hi ch M r. H anners r el i es. Fi rs t, M r . Hanne r s su bmi ts a l i sto fo ther I S P e m pl o y ee s who had been di sci p lin ed b y the I SP. H e co ntends thata com paris on betw een hi m sel fand the ei ghtee n l i ste d i nd i vi du al s dem onst ra tes that othe r em plo yee s rece i ved l es s se ve r e pu ni sh m en t des pi te e ng ag i ngi n mi sc o ndu ct that M r. H anners bel i eve s to be si m i l ar to o r w or se tha n hi s o wn. Ho we v e r, Mr
. Ha nn e r s h a s f a i l ed to p r o vide eviden ce th at an y of th e li sted i nd ivi d ua ls are22 N o. 11

- 1754

Se e M o ntg o me ry v . Am. Ai r l i ne s , Inc. , 62 6 F .3d 382 , 39 3 (7th 14 Cir. 2010) ( st ati ng that one acc epted cate gory of ci rcum st anti al evi denc e i s “ evi denc e ofs ys t em at i c al l y be t t ert re at m en tof em p l oye es out s i de the pr ot ec t ed c l as s ” ( i nt er nalquo t at i on m a rk s o m itt ed )); Tr o up e v . M a y Dep ’ t St o re s C o. , 20 F.3d 734, 7 3 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( e x pl a i ni ngtha tc ompa r a t or s m us tbe “si m il arl y si tuate d to the plaint iffotherthan in t h e characte ri sti c . . . on w hich an em ployer i s f orbidd en t o base a di ffer en ce in tr ea tm en t” ). n on -C au c as ian
. N or d oe s M r . H an n er s p ro vid e a n y e vi- 14 den ce tha t no n- Cauc as i an s ha d s en t emai l s co nt ai ning si m i l arco ntent on the I SP co m pu tersy st em and had r ec ei ve d l es s se ve r e puni sh m en t. W e th er efo r e co nc lu d e t h ath e h as failed to d em on st ra te th atin d i v id u als ou ts id e t h e p ro te c te d cla ss rec eiv ed sy st em at ica lly bett erdi sci plinary tr eat m ent. A bsent such ci rcum sta nti al evi dence, M r. H anners ’ s a sse rt i on that he w oul d not have been su sp ended fo r thi rty days had he be en an A fri can Am er i can am ounts to m er e s pecula ti on, wh i ch th is c ou rtco n sis te n tl y h a s h eld is in su fficie n t t o a vo id s u m m ar y jud gm en t. Se e, e . g. , Ka razano s v. Navist ar Int’l Tran s p. Corp. , 948 F.2d 332 , 337 (7th C ir. 1991). Fu rtherm or e, M r. H anners di d not dem onst ra te that th e i n d i v i d u a l s l i s t e d w e r e “ d i r e c t l y c o mp a r ab l e t o [ h i m] inall m at er ial re sp ec ts .” P a tterson v. A very D enn iso n C o rp., 281 F. 3d 676, 68 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 02) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). There f or e, he ha s f ai l ed to es tabl i sh that the l i ste d i nd i vi du als were i n f act si m i l ar l y s i tuate d to h im . W e h av e h eld th at“[a ]n em p loy ee is sim ilar ly si tuate d to a p lai nti ffi fthe tw o em plo yee s dealwith the sam e supervi sor, ar e subj ect to the sam e standards,N o. 11

- 1754 23

As th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tapt l y not e d, i ti s u n c l e a r wh e th e r t wo 15 of the th ree in cid en ts, the incid en ts inv olv ing the p or no g rap hic m at er i al, i nvol ved the i m pro perus e ofanI SP c om put eror th e p a tr o lm en ’s p er so n a l co m p u te rs . an d hav e eng aged i n sim il ar con d uc t w ithou t suc h d if

fer enti ating o r m i ti gat i ng ci rcum sta nces as w ou ld di sti ngui sh the i r c onduct orthe em plo yer ’ s t re atm ent o f them

. ” Fan ev. Lo ckeReynol ds, LL P , 48 0 F. 3d 534, 54 0 ( 7th Cir

. 2007 )

. Therefor e, w hen a pla i nti ff al leg es that he r ecei ved har sherdi sci pline than othe r em ployee s, i t is n ec es sa r y f o rthe c o ur t to c o ns i derwhethe rthe empl o y ee s eng ag ed i n the s ame c o nduc t f o rwhi chthe p lain tiff w as d isc ip lin ed . H er e, on ly th re e o f th e in d ivi dual s l i st ed wer e di sc i pl i ne d f o ra ct i o ns i nv o l ving th e i m pr o peruse of I S P e qui pm en t ( two i nc i den ts i nvo l vi ng po r no grap hic m at er i al a nd o ne i nc i den t i nv o lvi ng a n e m ai lc o nt aini nga v i deo abo utthe “F -wor d”)

. In a ddi ti o n, the r e i s no e vi den ce tha t any

15 ofthe l i s t e d ind i v i du a l s we r e di s c i pl i ne d fo rc o nduct i nv o l ving th e so r t o f r ac i al an d g end er s te r eo ty pi ng i n v o l v e d h e r e . Mo r e o v e r, Mr
. Ha n n e r s h a s n o ts h o wn th a ta n y o fth e i n d i v i d ua l s w h o m h e o ffe r s a s c o mparat ors had the sa m e l eader shi p re sponsibi l i ti es as he h a d. I t i s a l so note w or thy that M r. H anners di d not provi de evi dence r ega rdi ng th e di sci plinarym eas ures tak en again st the thre e o therI SP e m plo yee s who had b ee n rep rim an d ed for d iss em in at in g th e B arb ie D oll em ail. N ordi d h e p r o v i de e v i de nc e r e g a r di ngwh e the ra nyo f24 N o. 11

- 1754

A s noted earl ie r, M r. H anners does not chall enge the f act 16 tha t his thirty -da y susp en sion w ou ld ha v e b een sho rten ed to ten or fiftee n day s ifhe had accepte d the D is ci plinary R eview B oard’ s se tt le m ent offer. Dir ec t or T ren tdi d note xpr es s anopi ni on re gar di ng 17 the offen sive na tu re o f the em ail. M r. Han ne rs ’ s c i rc um s t anc es, the re f or e, ar e di ffer en tfro m 18 thos e wher e dec i s i onm ake rs m ade der oga t or y c om m ents (co n tin u ed ...) the l i s t e d ind i v i du a l s s i m i l a r l y h a d r e fus e d t o a c c e pt s e t t l e men to ffe r s fr o m t he Bo a r d. 16 A pl ai nti ffal so m ay show d i scr i m i natio n by est abl i shi ng “a m bi guous sta tem ents or behavi orto w ar d other em plo yee s in the p ro tected gr oup that tak en to gether al l ow a n i nfe re nce o fdi scr i m i natory intent. ” M o ntg o m ery, 626 F.3d at 393 (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). H er e , Mr
. Ha nn e r s p r o v i de s s t a t e men t s ma de by Col onelN el son, Li eutenant Col onelA da m s, Com m ander W oo d s a n d L ieu te n an t C o lon el St allw or th , w h o s aid that they f ound s om e of the co ntent i n the em ai lto be r a c i a l l y o ffe ns i v e . Al tho ugh the de fe nd a nt s ’ de s c r i p- 17 tio n s of th e em ail p er ta in to ra c e, th ey ar e m er ely pr o ba ti ve o fthe f ac t th atc er ta i n i nd iv i dual s f o und as pec ts o fthe e m ai lt o b e o ffen sive a nd do no t po i nt to an y racial a nim us against M r. H an ne rs him self. M r. H anners has f ai l ed to i denti fy a singl e instance whe r e the de fe nd a nt s e ng a g e d in behav i o ro rma de c o mm e nt s tha ts ug g e s t e d a di s c r i mi na t o r y a t t i tud e aga i nst Caucasi ans g ener al l y or agai nst hi m bec ause he i s a Caucasi an. There i s e vi dence thatCol onel 18N o. 11

- 1754 25

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 18 ab ou t an em p loy ee’s g en d er o r race sho r t l y b e fore an ad v erse em p lo y m en t a ct io n w a s ta k en . SeePhel an v. C ookC nty. , 463 F .3d 77 3 , 78 2 (7t h C ir . 20 0 6 ) (co n c l u d i n g th a t a fem a le p la in tiff had prod uced su ffic ie nt e vidence to r each the j ury w here s he wa s told that s he wa s t r yi ngt o wor k “ i n a m a n’ s wor l d” and r epe at edl y a bus ed a nd i ns t ru c t ed tha the r workplace w as “no place for a w o m a n ” s hortl y before s he w as te rm in a te d ); Vol ovsek v. Wiscon si n D ep’ t of A gri c., Trade & C on su m er P ro t. , 34 4 F
. 3d 680 , 689- 90 ( 7th Cir

. 2003 ) ( c onc l udi ng tha t a fem a l e p lain tiff ha d p ro d u ced suffi cien t ev id en ce to reach the j ury un der the directm ethod w here she overheard he r sup er vi s or s s pea ki ng about“k ee pi ng the m bar efootan d p re g n a n t” sh o rt ly b efo re sh e w a s d en ie d a p ro m o tio n ). Ne l s o n, Li e ut e na ntCo l o ne lAda ms, Co mm a nd e rWo o ds an d L i eu te na ntCo l o ne lS ta l l wor thwer e ups etb y the co nt en t o fM r . Hanne r s’ s emai la nd a d am an t tha t he sh ou ld be d iscipli ne d harsh ly bec au se o f it. H ow ever, ther e i s no ev i dence to sugg estthatthe f ocus ofthe defend an ts’ com m en ts or actions w ere related to M r. H a n ne rs’s race as op p osed to the inap p rop riate natu re ofhi s co nd uct. A l though M r. H anners m ay bel i eve that the defendants’ st ate m ents ar e e vi denc e ofr aci al an im us, the “subj ecti ve bel i ef s of the pla i nti ff

. . . ar e insuffi ci ent t o c re ate a genui ne i ssue ofm ate ri al f act. ” M cM il li an v. Svetano ff , 878 F.2d 186 , 190 (7th C ir. 1989 ). M r . Hanne r s ne xtc o nt en ds th atthe atyp i ca lha ndl i ng of h is in ve st iga tio n is ev id en c e o f d isc rim in at ion . In parti c u lar, he a sse rt s that the I SP’ s devi ati on fro m i ts26 N o. 11

- 1754 i nter nalpol i cy as sta ted in P ER

- 032 i s ci rcum sta nti al evi dence ofr aci aldi scr i m inati on. I SP pol i cy PER

- 032, I I I
. B.1 pro vi des: W hen an e m plo yee, s up er vi sor, o r m anage r r epo r ts a l l eg at i o ns o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n, ha r as sment orr eta l i ati on t o the EEO Offi ce, the EE O Offi ce w i l ls e n d th e e m p l o y e e r e p o r t i n gs u c h d i s c r i mi n a t i o n, h a r a s s m e n t, o rr e t a l i a t i o n a n E E O C o mp lain t In ta k e Q u es tio n n air e, for m ISP 1-3 6, w ith in 5 ca l endar days o fr ecei vi ng the r epor t. R. 29

- 2 at 17
. M r . H anne r s as se r ts th at no com pl aint wa s fi l e d a n d th a tn o o n e c o mp l e t e d a n i n t a k e f o r m. H e a d m i ts , ho wev er, tha t Capt ain F i dl er, a s hi s su per vi s o r, s u b mi t t e d a C AD M u p o n c o n c l u d i n g th a t th e emai li nde ed o r i g i na te d fr o m M r . Hanne r s. S uz anne Bond , Chie fo fthe I SP EEO o ffice , s tat ed duri ng her de po s i t i o n tha t the r e a r e t wo wa y s i n whi c h an E EO i nvest i gat i on m ay be ini ti ate d. She ac kn owledge d that an em plo yee m ay fi l e a co m pla i nt di re ctl y with her offi ce a nd , i n doi ng so , m ust co m ple te an i ntake questionnai r e. Howev er, s he a l so c o nfi r m ed th ata s upe rvi sorm ay i ni ti ate an EEO i nvest i gat i on with a s i gned CA DM o r by w ri ti ng a m em or andu m t o the Chi efo f EEO r eque st i ng an i nv es ti g at i o n. The r efo r e, as the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed, the f act th at an i ntake questi onnai re neve r w as com ple ted i s “ i m m ate ri algi ven th e s u b m iss ion of Fid le r ’ s C A D M .” R .38 at32 . Th e e vidence shows, a n d M r. H anners does notr efute, that despit e the l anguage i n PER

- 032, hi s invest i gat i on was i ni ti ate d i n acco rdance w i th I SP pol i cy.N o. 11

- 1754 27 S i g ni fi ca nt, une xpl aine d o rs y st emati c dev i at i o ns fro m es tabl i shed pol i ci es orprac ti ces can no d ou b t be re l ati ve and p robati ve ci rcum sta nti alev i dence ofdi scr i m i na to r y i nt en t. In Giac ol e t t o v . Am ax Zi ncCo. , 95 4 F. 2d 424 , 4 2 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) , we h e l d tha ta j ur y r easo nabl y c o ul d ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t, b ec au se the em plo yerhad “neg l ec te d to f ol l ow the pro cedures f or hel ping em plo yee s t o ove rco m e thei r defi ci enci es, [ i t] had fi re d [the pl ai nti ff ]
. . . to r et ali ate f orhi s r efusalto r e t i r e . ” T h e r e , th e e mp l o y e rh a d n o tc o u n s e l e d th e e mp loy ee th ath is w or k h ad fallen be low a c c e p ta b le le vels, ha d not d evelop ed a plan to bri ng his perf o r m an ce up to a cc ept ab l e l ev el s an d ha d k eptno w rit te n rec or d s o f an y c ou n se lin g s e s s i o n s w ith h im
. See i d. In re achi ng o ur co ncl usi on, we explained that, despit e the f act th at the defendant’s witnes ses “cl ai m ed that the com pany neve r appli ed these pro cedures to mana g er i alpe r so nne l, the e xpr es s languag e o fthe cor pora te p olicy s tat em ent ind i cate d that the pol i cy appli ed to [ the pl ai nti ff ]
. ” Id. S i m i l ar l y, i n R udin , we concl ud ed that the e m plo yer ’ s departure fro m i ts st at ed h irin g p olic ies co n st itu te d “c irc u m st an tia l ev id en ce of discrim ination.” 420 F.3d at 72 1. H ow ever, R udin is d iffe r e n t f ro m th e p re se n t c as e b ec au se , in ad d it i on to th e em p loy er ’s d ev iat ion fro m h irin g po licy , a Caucasi an pl ai nti ff had dem onst ra ted thatthe devi ati on h ad res u lte d in t h e h irin g of a n A fric a n - A m er ica n ca n d id at e, w ho r anked se cond to l asto fal lo fthe appli cants and had be en re i nser ted i nto the candidate pool afterpre vi ousl y hav i ng be en el i m i nated. Fur ther, the re i nser ti on f ol l owed a com m i tt ee chai rper son’ s r epeate d stat em ents28 N o. 11

- 1754

re ga rd in g p re ss u re to h ire a m in or ity
. S e ei d. a t 722- 24. H er e, as the di str i ct c ourtnot ed, the f act that Cap tain Fid ler su b m itt ed th e C A D M to D II ap p ea r s t o b e “ in acco rdance w i th I SP pol i cy. ” R. 38 at 32. M r. Hanne r s co r r ec tly a ss er ts tha t th e us ua lpr o ce dure o fha vinga c o m pl aina ntc o m pl et e ani nt ak e qu esti o nnai re was not f ollow ed

. H owever, the I SP has o ffer ed a n e xp l a na t i o n f o r thi s s e e mi ng de v i a t i o n fr o m i ts proced ure s by not ing tha t the proc ed ure s f o llo w ed w ere appropri ate wh en a s upe r vi s ori ni ti ate s th e proces s. I nde ed, a s we no te d e ar li er, M r . Hanne r s o ffer s no ex p licitco n tr ad ict ion for th atex p l a n a t ion
. Se eJam e s v. She ahan , 1 37F
. 3d 10 03 , 1 00 7 ( 7th Ci r . 19 98 ) ( dec l i ni ng to c o ns i dera de vi at i o n o fr egul ar p racti ce r el ev an t an d proba ti ve of disc ri m i nati on w hen pla i nti ffo ffer ed nothi ng to r efute defendant’s expl anati on); s ee also B rigg s v. P o tter, 46 3 F
. 3d 507, 51 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 06)

. M or eover, her e the I SP’ s devi ati on fro m i ts proce du re s is hardl y o ffer ed as a j usti fi cati on for t he ul ti m ate act i on taken against M r. H an ne rs. T he de viation i s far m ore tange nti aland i nvol ve s s i m plythe m anner i n w hi ch th e c h ar ge w as init iat ed

. See R a nd le v. C i ty o f A uro ra , 69 F
. 3 d 4 4 1 , 4 5 4 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 )

. I n d e e d , a g o o d d e a l o ft he con c er n abo ut M r. H anners ’ s co nd uct was bas ed on th e f ac t th at, a s a su p ervisor, he ha d s pec i alo bl i g at i o ns to the I SP an d i ts e m p lo y ees to m aintain an atm osp he re ofev en- h anded ness and trusti n the I SP. U nd erthes e circum stan ces, a senior offi cer initi ating a d iscipli na ry p ro c es s in a m an n er d iffer en t fr om th atem p loy ed in othe r em plo yee co m pla i nts i s no t ind i cati ve ofr aci al ani m us.N o. 11

- 1754 29 Ad di ti o na l l y, we m us t co ns i derthe de vi at i o n, a l o ng w ith oth er circum stan tial evid en ce, in ord er to de term ine w he th er there is suffi cientevid e n c e that M r. H an n er s w as d isc rim in at ed ag ain ston ac c ou n t o f h is r ac e su chtha t i t “war r an ts s ubm iss i o n o fthe i ss ue to a t ri ero ff act. ” R udin , 4 20 F. 3d at 724. H er e, g i ve n the l ac ko fcirc um st an ti ale vi den ce s uppo r ting M r . Hanne r s’ s cl ai m o fr ac ial di sc r i m i na ti o n, we co ncl ud e that th e m inordevi ati on fro m wri tte n pol i cy i s insuffi ci ent t o avo i d sum m ar y j ud gm ent. M r. H anners al so poi nts t o anothe r al l ege d procedural d isc re p an c y. H e n ot es th atD II in itia l l y as ke d C ap ta in Fi dle r to i nvest i gat e the em ai li nci dent, bu t la ter re fer re d the m att erto EEO

. A ccor ding to M r. H anners , the i nvest i gat i on w as “tak en aw ay” fro m Cap tain Fidler and Lieute nant A nd er son- M ar ti n beca use they “ w er e not going to i m pose the d esi re d disc i pline. ” A pp el l ant’ s Br. 24
. A gain, M r. H anners ’ s m er e s pecula tion, witho ut m or e, is in su fficie n t to av oid su m m ar y jud gm en t. Kara zanos , 948 F. 2d at 337. M r. H anners su b m i ts no e vi dence thatsugg est s that the deci si on t o re ferthe m atter to the EE O offi ce was m o tiv at ed by an y t yp e o f rac ial a n im u s. R at h er , C ap ta in Fi dle r tes ti fi ed i n hi s dep osi ti on that he bel i eve d that rem oving the i nvest i gat i on fro m hi s workuni t was in ke ep in g w i t h oth er d ec isio n m ak in g p ro c es se s w ith in the I SP. H e e xplained th at, al though s uch a t ra nsfero f an i nvest i gat i on o ften c auses co nfusi on w ithi n the unit, it i s not ou t o f t h e o r d inary. R
. 32-6 at 1 (Fi d ler D ep . 42). M o r eo ve r, g i ve n the f ac t th atthe s ubj ec t m at te ro fthe30 N o. 11

- 1754 i nv e s t i g a t i o n wa s we l lwi thin the p ur v i e w o fthe EE O offi ce, w e agree with the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi on that the s er i es of events thatl ed to the EE O i nvest i gat i on w as i nd eed “unre m ar kabl e. ” R. 38 at 32. Fi nal l y, M r. H anners ar gues that I SP pol i cy w as not f ol l owed i n the prom oti on ra ti ngs pr oce ss because Lie utenant And er son- M ar ti n, hi s s up er vi sor, was not perm i tte d the r equi si te disc reti on in ra ti ng M r. H anners , n or w as sh e p e r m itt ed to res p on d to M r. H an n er s’s ch all enge i n a m anner that she deem ed ap p ro pri ate
. M r. H an ne rs doe s not p rovide any w ritten or oralI SP pol i cy that supp or ts thi s a ssert ion. H owever, i t i s cl ear fr o m the e vi den ce pr es en te d that Li eu te na ntAnder so nM artin was unde rpr es su r e wi thr eg ar d t o the ha ndl i ng o fM r . Hanne r s’ s pr o m o ti o n a nd c ha l l en g e to the pr o po se d di sc i pl i na r y a ct i o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t co r r ec tly i den ti fi ed th at it wa s Li eu te na ntAnder so n- M ar tin’ s co nduc t, a s th e dec i si o nm ake r, thatwas re l evantwith r espectto thi s a spect of M r. H an n er s’s d isc rim in at ion cla im
. Se e, e . g. , R o gers , 3 20 F
. 3d at 754 ( ex pl aini ngtha t “[ a] de ci si o nm ak eri s th e perso n re sponsibl e forthe conte ste d decis i on” ( i nter nal quot a t i o n mar k s o mi t t e d) )

. He r e , the c o nt e s t e d d e c i s i on i s th e l o wer i ngof M r . Hanne r s’ s pr o m o ti o n r at i ng to refl ect th e em aili nc iden t. T he refo r e , at the outs et, M r. H anne rs mustde m o ns tr at e th atLi eu te na ntAnder so nM ar tin ul ti m atel y l ac k ed th e au th o r i tyt o de te r m i ne hi s pro m oti on r ating. See V entu relli v. A R CC m ty. Serv s., Inc. , 3 50 F
. 3d 59 2, 6 00 ( 7th Ci r . 20 03 )

. W e a l so m us t ev aluat e w h et h er th e ra tin gs p ro c es s “ w as a s h am or c on d u itN o. 11

- 1754 31 for [ the defendants’ ] al l ege d raci alani m osi ty. ” Wi l l i s v. M arion Cnty. A u ditor ’s O ff ice, 118 F.3d 542 , 547 (7th C ir. 19 97 )

. The f ac t th at Comm an derW o o ds, Li eu te na nt C o l o n e lS t a l l wo r th a nd Li e u t e n a n tC o l o n e lA d a ms did noto rderLieutenant A nd er son- M ar ti n to l ower M r. H anners ’ s g ra de does not necess ar i l y m ean that th eydid no t ac t as de ci si o nm ak er s o re xe r t undue i nflu en c e ove r h er d ec isio n . Se e, e . g. , Wallacev. SM CPn eum atics Inc. , 1 03 F
. 3d 13 94, 1 40 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( co nc l udi ng that a for m al l y s ubor dinat e e m plo yee sho uld be tr eat ed as a deci si onm ake r bec ause he was “the r ealcause o f th e a d ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n ”). H ow ev er , e v e n if w e were to ass u m e th at, gi ven the i nfluence they exer ted o verL i eutenant A nd er son- M ar ti n, Com m ander W o od s, Li eu te na ntCo l o ne lS ta l l wor tha nd Li eu te na nt Col onelA dam s were i nd eed the “ d eci si onm ake rs ” with re ga rd to the hand l i ng o fM r. H anners ’ s pro m oti on ra ting, M r. H anners has f ai l ed to pro vi de any evi dence to su p p ort his assert io n of racial an im us on th e pa rt of these d efe n d an ts. T he eviden ce p resen ted w ith regard to the r at ings ses si o n ins te ad demons tr at es a s tr o ng re sponse on t h e par t o fthe defe nd ants base d up on th e co nt en t o f th e emai ls en t byM r . Hanne r s an d th eir be lief th ath e s h ou ld be d is c i p l i n ed se ve re ly. In addit i o n, Ca pta i n F i dl era nd Li eu te na ntAnder so nM artin u lti m ately j o in ed Lieu ten an t C olonel Stal lw orth’s rej ecti on o fM r. H anners ’ s chal l enge to hi s g ra de.32 N o. 11

- 1754 Conclusi on Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o ft h e d i str i ct c o ur ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED

3- 19- 12