# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 A rgued J uly9, 20 08 Deci ded A ugust 2 1, 20 08 B efo re RIC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 07
- 3482 E S S E L O NA J ANE L AR S O N, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. PO RT AGE T OWN S HI P S CHOO L C O R P O R AT I O N , D efend a nt-A pp ellee
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fInd i ana , H amm o nd Di vi si o n. N o. 2: 05cv4 31 Phi l i p P. S i m o n, Judg e . O R D E R Po r ta g e To wnshi p S ch o o lCo r po r at i o n de ci ded no t to r en ew the c o nt r ac t o fEs se l o na Lar so n, a s pr i nc i palo fM y er s El ement ary S ch o o l, a fte rthe 2 00 4- 20 05 s ch o o ly ea r . The re aso ns st ate d fo r thi s deci si on were ess enti al l y Lar son’ s poo r l eader shi p, poordeci si on m ak in g a n d ins u b or d in at ion
. L ar so n th en su ed th e t ow n sh ip u n d er T itle V II of th e C ivil R ights A ct of 1964, 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000e-2, al legi ng rel igi ou s d iscrim ination. T he district cou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forPor tag e Township, and Larso n appeal s. Beca use Lar son NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 07
- 3482 Page 2

ha s not sh ow n a gen uin e factu al disp ut e of un eq ua l treatm en t, w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s gr an t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t. T h e fa c ts are co n st ru ed in t h e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o L ar so n . See M a c l i n v . S BC A m er it ec h , 52 0 F
. 3d 781, 78 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. In J uly20 03 Por tag e Township S chool s hi re d La r s o n a s p r i nc i pa lo fMye r s El e men t a r y S c ho o l
. Al mos ti mm e di a t e l y a ft e rb e i ngh i r e d, Lar so n b eg anha vingmin o rdi spu te s wi thDi an e Zui ck, a J ewi sht ea ch era t th e sc ho o l, a nd so both beg an docum enti ng the co nfl i cts. The c o nfl i ctb etwee n La r so n a nd Zui ckr ea ch ed a bo i l i ngpo i nti n Nov embe rwhen, at a s taffm eet i ng, Lars on s ai d, w i th an outst re tched hand, “HeilH i tl er ” in re sponse to se ve r als ta ffmem be r s ha vingr ai se d the i rha nds
. La r so n, tho ug h, de ni ed m ak i ngthe com m ent with a r ai sed hand and cl ai m ed that she m ade i t under her bre ath o nl y b ecause sh e was “ ne r vo us . ” Re g ar dl es s, many o fthe t ea ch er s to o ki ss ue wi thhe rc o m m en t. On e tea cherapproa ched Larso n afterthe m eet i ng and to l d her that Zuick w as J ew i sh and that som e o fZuic k’ s f am i l y m em ber s had per i shed i n the H ol oca ust. S hor tl y there afterZuic k approached Lar son to i nfo rm herhow “uncom f or tabl e, pai nful, and offensi ve i t was to se e her sal ute Hitl er . ” Larso n apol ogi zed to Zuic k forthe com m ent, ye t the co nfl i ct c ontinued into th e rem aind er of th e sch ool year. InD ec em b er 20 03 , Zu ick co m p lain ed to L ar so n ab ou t t h e C h ris tia n C h ris tm as ca ro ls th at w ere being p layed over the interc om i n th e classroom s. In resp ons e to Zu ick’s com pla i nts, the car ol s were turned o ffi n Zuick ’ s cl ass ro om . The ne xt day, unbeknownst to Larso n, a schoo lsi te-base d team vi si ted Zuic k in hercl ass ro om to as k what she had against Ch ri stm as and to deter m i ne wh y s he was “o ver - re acting to the H ei lH i tl eri nci dent. ” Se ver alte acher s obj ecte d to the m eet i ng and co m pla i ned about i t t o Larso n. On Decem ber 15, Zuic k e m ai l ed Larso n ask i ng to be excused fro m the “A l lS tudent Sing- al ong” bec ause “t h e m ajorit y of t h e s on gs are C h ris tm as ca ro ls.” Zu ick als o in for m ed L ar so n in t h e e m ail that, r ega rdi ng the upcom i ng, fi rs t- eve r “St affH am Brea kf ast, ” s he “a dh er e[ s] to the J ew i sh d iet ar y la w s.” L ar so n res p on d ed th at th e m u sic atth e s in g-a lon g w ou ld be th e s am e a s in pr ev i o us y ea r s, tha t th er e woul d b e al te r na ti ve menu i te m s atthe b r ea k f as t, a nd tha t sh e w oul d not e xcuse Zui ck fro m ei therev ent. The ne xt day Ri chard M i l l er, the I nd i ana S tat e Teacher s Associ ati on ( I STA ) U ni Se rvDir ecto r, wrote to S up er i ntendent Geor ge M cK ay on behal fo fZuic k, r ai si ng co ncer ns abo ut the re l i gi ous ho sti l i ty Zuick had al l ege dlysuffer ed and seek i ng a m eet i ng to r eso l ve the m att er . And , atabo ut the sam e t i m e, the J ew i sh Feder ati on o fN or thw estInd i ana (J FN I ) se nt a l ett erto the Por tag e S choolBoar d C hai rm an dem anding an i nquir y into the Hei lH i tl eri nci dent. O n D ecem ber 18, A ssistan t Sup erinten d en t B arb H ow e w rote Z uick a letter, ass uri ng herthatshe coul d ski p the “ A l lS tudent Sing- al ong, ” e xplaini ng tha t herpre sence at th e “ St aff H am B re ak fas t” w as n ec es sa ry bu t t h at sh e n ee d n otea t a n yt h in g t h at w ou ldN o. 07
- 3482 Page 3

m ake her“uncom f or tabl e, ” a nd i nfo rm i ng herthathe ha d dir ecte d the s chool ’ s s taffto pl ay onl y s ecul arm usi c o n the schoo l ’ s inter com . A m onth l ate r, H owe m et w i th Lars on t o emphas i ze tha t Po r ta g e To wnshi p S ch o o l s di d no t co ndo ne he r“ H ei lHi tl er ” r emar ka nd f ound it“inapp ro pri ate , o ffensi ve, and unacceptabl e. ” H owe al so sent Larso n a l ett er sta ti ng tha t a l though s he di d not purpose fully intend to hurt Zui ck and did not have a pat te r n o fs uchb eh av i o r, La r so n was e xpe ct ed to “ adh er e to S ch o o lBo ar d Po l i ci es a nd c on d u c t [h er se lf] in s u c h a w ay th at fos te rs ac c ep ta n c e o f d ive rs ity .” O n Feb rua ry 3, 2004, how ever, Zu ick em ail ed her IS T A U niServ D irector, Rich ard M i l l er, te l l i ng hi m thatLars on was “incapabl e o fchanging herways” a nd thatnothi ng had changed. S he cl ai m ed that Larso n i gnor ed herr equests , r efused to ge t ba ck to her on press i ng i ssues , and em bar ra sse d her i n fro nt o fo therte acher s. The di spute co nti nued thro ughout the winterand i nto the s pri ng, r esul ti ng i n a m eet i ng o n M ar ch 15 between L arson, Zu ick, H ow e, M il ler, Da vid L esich ( I ST A Presid en t), and Da n Friel (the tow ns hip ’s at to r ne y )
. Ho we’ s m emor an dum o fthe meet i ngl ai d o uta s eto fe xpe ct at i o ns a nd gu id elin es for Z u ick an d L ar so n to follow w h en d ea lin g w ith on e a n ot h er . Sh or tly th er ea fte r, ath er an n u al e va lu at ion w ith H ow e in M ay , L ar so n rec eiv ed a m ix ed rev iew
. Al tho ugh s he a c hi e v e d a l lf o uro fh e rl i s t e d g o a l s , La r s o n a l s o r e c e i v e d a “ Ne e ds I m prove m ent” m ar k, the l owest pos sibl e, i n ei ght c ate gor i es. F urther, H owe note d that Larso n “had a t endency to bec om e defensi ve and then on the o ffensi ve . . . [ and] would be w ell se rv ed to co n sid er th e p ro b lem rat h er th an reg ar d in g e ac h sit u at ion as an at ta c k.” I n J ulyS up er i ntendent M cK ay re ti re d and w as re pla ced by M i chaelBert a, wh o had taught w i th Zuic k a t M yer s El em entar y S chooli n the 1970 s. W i thin a few weeks of be g i nni ngthe ne w pos i ti o n, Be r ta r ec ei ve d s ev er ale m ai l s fr o m Zui ckabo uthe ro ng o i ng dispute w i th Lars on. As a r esul t, Bert a s cheduled y et anothe r m eet i ng be tw een Zui ck, Lar so n, F r i el, M i l l er, a nd Le si ch
. Dur i ngthe meet i ngthe s ch o o l ’ s po l i ci es a nd e xpe ct at i o ns w er e o nce a gain re i ter ate d. Lars on, tho ugh, fel t a s i fthe parti ci pants had al l owed Zuic k t o “pe r so na l l y a tt ac k ” he ra t th e m ee ting . T he ne xtda y M i l l ers en t Ber ta a mem o r an dum expla i ni ng tha t Lar son see m ed unabl e “ to accept re sponsibi l i ty f orthe f al lo ut f orso m e o f he ra ct i o ns ” whi l e Zui ckha d “ bo unda r y i ss ue s. ” Ov erthe ne xtfew months , Zui cka nd L a r s o n f a i l e d t o r e s o l v e th e i rd i s p u t e , a n d th u s a th i r d me e t i n gwa s h e l d b e t we e n th e t wo parti es w here notm uch, i fanythi ng, was achi eve d. Bert a then had H owe m eet i nd i vi du al l y with Larso n and Zu i ck, and used H owe’s fi nd i ngs t o i ssue anothe r seto f expectat i ons, wh i ch w ar ned ofadver se conse quences a nd r equi re d a si gnatur e fro m bo th parti es. The di spute dete ri or ate d even furthero n N ove m ber22 wh en Zuic k fi l ed a for m al com pla i nt o fhar ass m ent a gainst Lar son, cl ai m i ng tha t s he had bee n hara sse d fo r the past 16 m on th s “ b ec au se I am Jew ish .”N o. 07
- 3482 Page 4

I n Decem berBert a instr ucted H owe to sta nd ar dize the township’ s 2 004 hol i day p ro gr am so th at ev er y e lem en ta ry sc h oo l w ou ld p er for m th e s am e s on gs . B as ed on th is de c i s i o n, Ho we wo r k e d wi th the mus i c t e a c he r s t o de v e l o p a s o ngl i s ttha ti nc l ud e d a H anukkah s ong, a K w anza song, and sev er alpopula r Ch ri stm as car ol s. I m m edi ate l y a fter re cei vi ng the l i st ofso ngs, Lars on e m ai l ed H owe to sugge st that the l i st i ncl ud e “ a Chr i st i anChr i st m as s o ng . ” On Dec embe r7Be r ta r es po nde d t o La r so n’ s su g g es ti o n, sta ti ng tha t herr esponse co ncer ned him bec ause i t m i ght b e inter prete d as “ anothe r acti on to i rr i tat e M s. Zuic k” and “anothe r i nd i re ct a tte m pt to put Dia ne Zuic k in herpl ace. ” Berta fur th ere xpl aine d tha t th e i ss ue was no t whethe rChr i st i ans o ng s sh o ul d b e i nc l ude d b ut whethe rLa r so n, a s pr i nc i pal, “ ex er ci se d g o o d j udg m en t i n mak i ngthe r ec o m m en dat i o n” to i ncl ud e the so ngs. Thre e days l ate r, Lars on info rm ed Berta thathi s inter preta ti on was “erron eou s” an d that her su ggestion to inc lud e C hristian son gs w as “on beh alfof th e staff” an d no t m er ely he ro wn per so na lv i ew. Be r ta, v i ewi ngLa r so n’ s m emor an dum i n the conte xt o fhero ver al ldi spute with Zuick, deter m i ned that i t co nsti tuted the ”fi nalst ra w . ” H e th er efo r e i nf o r m ed Lar so n o n De ce m be r1 7 th atthe t o wnshi p woul d no t be r en ewi ng her contr act because o fher“m i ni m al ” l eader shi p ski l l s a nd i nabi l i ty to accept const ructi ve c r i t i c i s m. On Januar y 2 4, 20 05, the Por tag e Township S chool s Boar d ofTrust ees vo ted to “nonr enew” Larso n’s co ntra ct a s princi pal o fM yer s El em entar y S chool
. ( I t s houl d be note d that a l though Lar son w as not continued i n the adm i ni str ati on l eader shi p posi ti on a s a princi pal, she w as al l owed to r em ai n i n the schoo lsy ste m as a tenure d teache r. Rather th an ac c ep t t h at as sis ta n c e, L ar so n ab an d on ed h er em p loy m en t w ith th e s ys te m .) In N ov em b er L ar so n su ed P or ta ge T ow n sh ip u n d er T itle V II, alleg in g u n law fu l te rm in at ion
. I n r es po ns e to Po r ta g e To wnshi p’ s m o ti o n fo rs um m ary j udg m en t, La r so n a r g ue d tha t sh e had establ i shed a pr i m a f aci e ca se ofdi scr i m i nati on under the i nd i re ct, burden- shi fti ng te st by showing that ( 1) she i s a m em ber, as a Ch ri sti an, o fa prot ecte d cl ass ; ( 2) she m et Por tag e To wnshi p’ s l eg i ti m at e j o b ex pec ta ti o ns ; ( 3) s he s uffer ed ana dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n; an d (4) Z u ick, a sim ilar ly sit u at ed n on -C h ris tia nem p loy ee , w as tre at ed m or e fa vo ra b ly. L arson also con ten d ed that Portage Tow ns hip ’s reasons f or i ts d ecision to fi re her w ere m er el y a pre text f orr el i gi ous di scr i m i nati on ba sed o n herhaving r eco m m ended a Chri sti an C h r i s t ma s s o n gf o rth e h o l i d a y p r o g r a m. I n S e p t e mb e r2 0 0 7th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th e l d th a tL a r s o n c o u l d n o tma k e o u ta p r i ma fac ie c as e o f relig iou s d isc rim in at ion
. It re as on ed th at L ar so n an d Z u ick w er e n otsim ilar ly sit u at ed be c au se Z u ick w as a te ac h er atM ye rs E lem en ta ry w h er ea s L ar so n w as p rin c ip al. A nd the cour t, i nter tw i ni ng i ts anal yse s o fpre text and l egi ti m ate j ob expectat i ons, det er m i ne d tha t Lar so n f ai l ed to s ho w anye vi den ce o fpr et ex t o ri m pr o permot i ve . T he cour t there f or e g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o Por tag e Township. Lar son now appeal s.N o. 07
- 3482 Page 5

L ar so n ren ew s h er arg u m en ts th at sh e s at isfie d h er p rim a fa c ie c as e a s s etfort h in M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 4 11 U. S
. 7 92 , 8 02 ( 19 73 ) , a nd tha t sh e su bmi tt ed su ffi ci en t evi dence ofpre text. W e r evi ew a gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo , co nstr uingthe f acts an d infe re n c es in L ar so n ’s fa vo r. SeeM aclin v. SB CAm er it ec h , 520 F.3d 781 , 786 (7th C ir. 2008 ). W e hav e stated that w he re an em p loyer offers a l egitim ate, non d iscrim inatory r e a s o n f o rfi r i nga n e mpl o y e e , i ts i mpl y “ do e s n’ tma t t e r ” wh e the rthe p l a i nt i ffp r e s e nt e d a p rim a fa c ie c as e o f d isc rim in at ion
. SeeBrewer v. B d. of Tr. of the U niv. of Ill
. , 47 9 F
. 3d 908, 915- 16 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( ci ti ng St
. M ary’s HonorCt r . v. H i cks , 5 09 U. S
. 5 02 , 5 10

- 11 ( 19 93 ) )
. T he i ss ue , i ns te ad, b ec o m es whethe rthe pl aint i ffha s cr ea te d a g enui ne i ss ue o ff ac t ab o utthe sin c er ity of th at ex p lan at ion an d , in tu rn, w h et h er th e d efe n d an t d isc rim in at ed ag ain st h er . Se eH i cks , 50 9 U.S
. at51 1; Haguev. Thom ps on D i s t r i b ut i on Co. , 436 F.3d 816 , 823 (7th C ir. 2006 )
. Here, Por tag e Township has offer ed a l egi ti m ate , nondi scr i m i natory r eas on f or ter m i nati ng Lars on— she pos ses sed “m i ni m al ” l eader shi p ski l l s, co uld notacc ept o r und er sta nd sugg est i ons, and tr eat ed hersuperv i sor s a s a dvers ar i es. S i nce, i n thi s ca se, that ex pl an at i o n i s th e sa m e as the s ec o nd pr o ngo fthe pr i m a f ac i e te st, we addr es s th e se co nd prong and prete xt anal ysi s a t the sa m e t i m e. Lar so n a r g ue s th athe rj o b was no t i n j eo par dy i n Nov embe r2 00 4 an d the r efo r e th e tim in g of P or ta ge T ow n sh ip ’s d ec isio n to n on re n ew h er co n tr ac t w as su sp icio u s b ec au se it c o i n c i d e d wi th h e rs u g g e s t i o n t o i n c l u d e a C h r i s t i a n s o n gi n th e 2 0 0 4 h o l i d a y p r o g r a m. A n em plo yer ’ s e xplanat i on f ora ter m i nati on i s pre textuali fi t i s “ not the t rue gr ound” f ori ts d ec isio n . G ri

ff in v. Sis te rs of SaintFrancis, Inc. , 48 9 F
. 3d 838, 84 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. The focus of th e in q u iry is w h et h er th e e m p loy er ’s s ta te d rea so n for th e t er m in at ion w as h on es t. See Hague, 4 36 F
. 3d at8 23
. As he r e, thi s an aly si s o fte n o ve r l aps wi ththe s ec o nd e l emento fthe p rim a fa c ie c as e. See id. at 82 2-2 3; Forti erv. Am er itec h M obil e C om m c’ns, Inc. , 16 1 F
. 3d 1106 , 1113 ( 7th Cir. 1998). Larso n, wh o bear s the bur den ofpro vi ng pre text, has not counter ed Por tag e Tow nshi p’s expla nati on f orherte rm i nati on with any evi dence suffi ci ent t o cre ate a f actual d isp u te reg ar d in g w h et h er it w as th e t ru e g ro u n d for its d ec isio n . See G a tes v. C a terpilla r, Inc. , 51 3 F
. 3d 680, 68 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( pla i nti ffhas burden ofr ebutting em plo yer ’ s pro ffer ed re as on by sh ow in g it t o b e u n tr u e ra th er th an m er ely u n fair or in c or re c t). T h er e is am p le evi dence i n the re cor d dem onst ra ti ng Por tag e Township’ s i ssues with Lar son dati ng ba ck to the b eg i nni ngo fthe 2 00 3 sc ho o ly ea rwhens he r ec ei ve d a wri tt enr epr i m an d f o rmaking the “ H ei lH i tl er ” co m m ent in fro nt o fse ver alte acher s. F ol l owing the r epri m and, Larso n parti ci pated i n sev er alm eet i ngs r ega rdi ng herper f or m ance a s a r esul t o fherdi spute withN o. 07
- 3482 Page 6

Zui ck
. In May 20 04 s he r ec ei ve d e i g htl o w gr ade s o n h erpe r f o r m an ce e va l ua ti o n in the ar eas co ncer ni ng co m m unica ti on, o rg ani zati on, and com petency. By N ove m berLars on had parti ci pated i n num er ous m eet i ngs with Zuickand Por tag e Township offi ci al s, al lto no a vai l
. And i n N ove m ber20 04, wh en Lars on s ays thatherj ob w as not i n j eopar dy, Bert a w as “questi oni ng deepl y herabi l i ty to l ead” M yer s El em entar y S chool
. Lar son’ s Decem ber 2004 act i ons concerni ng the i ncl usi on o fa Ch ri sti an so ng i n the hol i day pro gr am defi ed Por tag e Township’ s pre pared so ng l i st and w er e deem ed yet“a notheri nd i re ct a tte m pt to pu t Di ane Zui ck i n herpl ace. ” Larso n has no t cr eat ed a g enui ne f actualdi spute o n whethe rPo r ta g e To wnshi p’ s r ea so ns f o rhe rt er m i na ti o n wer e a pr et ex t f o rr el i g i o us disc ri m i nati on, and she has no t s how n that she was m eet i ng Por tag e Township’ s l egi ti m ate expectat i ons. L a r s o n a l s o c h a l l e n g e s th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s ru l i n go n th e f o u r th e l e me n to fh e rp r i ma facie case. To d eterm ine w he th er em p loyees are sim il arly si tu ated , w e ask w he th er “the re ar e e nough co m m on features betw een the i nd i vi du al s t o al l ow a m eani ngful com pari son. ” H um phrie s v. C B O C S W es t, Inc. , 474 F.3d 38 7, 40 5 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), aff’d, 128 S. C t. 19 51 (20 08 ). A co m m on se n se d et er m in at ion, th is in q u iry ty p ica lly ex am in es w h et h er th e in d ivid u als deal t with the sam e s up er vi sor, were subj ect to the s am e s tandards, o r engag ed i n si m i l ar c on d u c t. Se e, e . g. , P ei ri ck v. Ind. U niv. Pu rdue U niv. -Indianap olis Athlet ics D ep’t, 51 0 F
. 3d 681, 68 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Her e, La r so n was i n n o ways i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed to Zui ck
. As te ac he ra nd pr i nc i pal, the y b o thha d e nt i r ely di ffer en t l ev el s o fe xpe r i en ce a nd j o b r es po ns ibi l i ty, a nd the y de a l twi th di ffe r e nts up e r v i s o r s . Mo r e o v e r, La r s o n’ s c o nt r a c twa s “ no nr e ne we d” because o fherm i ni m all eader shi p ski l l s a nd i nabi l i ty to accept sugge sti ons, i ssues that Zuick si m plydi d not hav e, part i cul ar l y b ecause i t was notherr esponsibi l i ty as a t eacherto l ead the schoo l
. Lar son has o ffer ed no e vi dence, o therthan the f act that both part i es occa si onal l y m et w i th o ne ano therto di scuss schoo lm att er s a nd r eso l ve thei r differ ences, th at te ac h er s a t M ye rs E lem en ta ry Sc h oo l are su bj ec t t o th e s am e s ta n d ar d s a s t h e p rin c ip al. A ccor dingl y, we A FFI RM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of Po r t a g e T o wns hi p.