## 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. 12

- 3515 J EN NIFE R H I T CHCOC K, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. A NGEL C OR PS, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 1:11- cv-00276

—RogerB. C os bey, Magis trate Judge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 26, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UNE 11, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, a n d R O V NE R an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i t Judge . Pl ai nti ffJ enni ferH i tchcoc k al l ege s th at A ngelCor ps, a hom e ca re ag ency, fi re d h er bec ause she was pre gnant, i n vi ol ati on o fthe Preg

nancy Di scr i m i nati on Act. A ngelC or ps proffer ed m u ltip le e x p lan at ion s fo r w h y H itc h c oc k w as fir ed , all re volv ing a ro und a bi zar re i nci dent i nvol vi ng the death ofa 100- yea r- ol d potenti alcl i ent. A fterbo th par ti es2 N o. 12

- 3515

conse nted to adj ud i cati on o ft h e m att erbefor e the m agistrate, he grante d A ng el Corp s’s m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent. W e fi n d that thi s was er ro r. H i tchcoc k s ubm i tt ed ev i den ce tha t th e su per vi so r who fi r ed he r e xpress ed ani m us to w ar ds pregnant wom en and tr eat ed H i tchcoc k di ffer entl y a fterl ear ni ng she was pregnant, only a few w eeks b e fo r e she w as fi red

. A ng el Corp s’s m an y exp lanation s for H itchc ock’s term ination w ere sh i fting, i nc o ns i st en t, f ac i al l y i m p lausibl e, o r a l l o fthe a b o v e . T he r e f o r e , a r e a s o nab l e j ur y c o ul d c o nc l ud e that A ngelCor ps’s expl anati ons w er e l i es , and that Hi t c h c o c kwa s fi r ed b e c a u s e s h e wa s p r e g n a n t
. S o we r e v e r s e a nd r e man d.

I . B AC KGR OUND S i n c e An g e l C o r ps mo v e d f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t, we const rue the f acts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rab le to H i tchcoc k to the extent that ther e i s a m ate ri ald ispute. A ngelCor ps i s a non- m edi calhom e ca re ag ency that perf or m s per sonalcar e se rv ices f ori ts cl i ents. I n October 2008 , H itchc ock w as hired as a client serv ices sup ervi sor, wh i ch ge nera l l y r equi re d her to perf or m new cl i ent a dm i ssi ons and asse ss the ne w cl i ent’ s nee ds to he l p Angel Co r ps det er m i ne whats er vi ce s o ug ht t o b e p r o v i de d. I n l ate J anuary2 010, H i tchcoc k l ear ned that she was p regn an t. She told a few co-w orkers in lat e Febru ary or early M arch , a n d w ord got to her im m ed iate sup ervi so r a fte r a bou t a wee k

. Dur i nga meet i ngwi ththe supervi soron M ar ch 25 ( at w hi ch poi nt H i tchcoc k wasN o. 12

- 3515 3

o nl y th r ee m o nths pr egna nt ) , th e su per vi so r as k ed H i tc hco ck whethe r sh e was “qui tt i ng ” afte r sh e g av e bi r th

. H i tc hc o cks ai d i t was t o o e ar l y t o s ay, a nd tha t su cha bi g deci si on co uld notbe m ade f ora few m or e m onths. T h e s u p er vis or sa id H itc h c oc k n ee d ed to m ak e a d ec isi on “ as soo n as possibl e” so as to have “co nti nuity o f c ar e fo r ou r c lien ts ,” an d H itc h c o c k s aid sh e w ou ld gi ve a m i ni m um o f30 days’ not i ce. A fter thi s conve rs ati on, the supervi sor bega n to si gni fi cantl y incre ase H i tchcoc k’ s work l oad. S he st ar ted di r ec tinga l l cli en t pr o bl ems t o Hi tc hc o cke ve n i fthe c l i ent i nsi ste d o n speaking w i th the supervi sor, a c h a n g e fr o m p a s tp r a c t i c e . S h e ma d e H i t c h c o c kc o mple te cer tai n m onthl y r epor ts f orwh i ch the supervi sor w as previ ousl y r esponsibl e, as sem bl e “ new adm issi on packet s” that w er e pr evi ousl y hand led b y a n adm i ni str ati ve a ssis tant, and perf or m cer tai n m ar ket i ng duti es th at a s epara te m ar ket i ng di re cto r w as al re ady char ged wi thdo i ng . S he a l so b eg ant o meetwi thHi tc hc o cko n a w eek l y b asi s t o “scr uti ni ze” her prog re ss f orthe w eek, w h i ch al so had neverbee n done be f or e s he l ear ned of H i tchcoc k’ s pre gnancy. The super vi sorlev i ed these i nc r ease d r es po ns ibi l i ti es e ve n tho ug h s he ha d l o ng been aw ar e that H i tchcoc k coul d no t w or k m or e th an 40 hours a w eekbec ause ofchi l d care i ssues , wh i ch m ea nttha t H i tc hc o ckha d to do mor e wor ki n a sh or te r am ou n t o f tim e. A s a res u lt, H itc h c oc k fe lt it w as “near l y i m possibl e” to com ple te these ta sks

. H itchc ock also proffered ev iden ce of her sup ervisor’s attitu d e tow ard s p regn an cy th roug h an affidav it ofa4 N o. 12

- 3515 f or m erco - w or ker

. A ccor ding to the c o- w or ker ’ s a ffi davi t, sho rt l y a fterthe supervi sorbec am e a w ar e o fher preg na nc y i n e a r l y 2 0 0 9 , the s up e r v i s o r s a i d tha t because she al read y had tw o chi l dren and se em ed to ha ve e no ug h “ tr o ubl e” wi ththe m , s he ne ede d t o “ th i nk about how m uch tr oubl e” she w oul d hav e w i th th ree ch il d ren regard ing h e r “ a tten d an ce,” and said, “I f Iw ere you Iwould have an abo rt i on. ” ( The co- w or kerwas even tu al l y fi re d, but f orr eas ons that ar e i rr el evantto th is s u it.) The eve nt thatA ngelCor ps cl aim s was the cause f o r Hi tc hc o ck ’ s fi r i ngo cc ur r ed o n Apr i l 5. Thatday, Hi tc hcockwent to the ho m e o fa new c lient to do an intake and a ss es sm ent. S he was or i gi nal l y s cheduled t o vi si t her o n M ar ch 31 but sh e ca l l ed i n si ck an d ha d to p ostp o ne the v i si t. The cl i ent was 10 0 y ears ol d and li vi ng with he r son. W he n Hi tc hc o ckwenti nt o the ho m e, s he fi r stwentthr o ug h the pa per wor kwi ththe s o n, dur i ng w h ich he e xpresse d his “ve hem ent” re fusalto al l ow an y m ed ical agen c y i n t o his hom e, said that “alldoc tors ar e p illpushers ” a nd thathi s m othe r w oul d neverbe p u t o n an y m ed ica tio n or s e e a d oc to r b ec au se h e d id n ottru st th em . (Re c all th at A n ge l C or p s t ec h n ica lly d oe s n otp ro vid e m e d i c al s er vic es .) Th e s on th en sa id th a t h i s mo th e r h a d b e e n r e fu s i n g n o u r i s h me n t an d fl uid s the l astfew days, so H i tchcoc k r eco m m ended th athe r ea cho utt o a h osp ic e f o r e nd- o f

- l i fe ca r e. The son re i ter ate d his o pp osi ti on t o m edi calcar e. A fterco m ple ti ng the paperwork, H i tchcoc k as ked to s e e h i s m othe r. The s o n “ r e l uc t a nt l y ” l e d h e r t o the b e d-N o. 12

- 3515 5

r o o m, o p e n e d th e d o o r, a n d w a l k e d t o th e b e ds i de w h il e Hitc hcockwas posi ti oned i n the door w ay. Fr om th atv an ta g e po i nt, Hi tc hc o ckc o ul d o nl y s ee the m o th er ’ s ba ck si de whi chwas c o ve r ed wi th a s he et, a nd th e s o n s t o o d b e t we e n Hi t c h c o c k a n d h i s mo th er t he enti re ti m e. The so n beg an poi nti ng to ar eas o fthe ro om to exp lai n w he re her clot h e s and other item s w ere sto re d, w h ich H i tchcoc k per cei ved w as an at tem pt to d ivert her atte n t ion from the m oth er. From the d oorw ay, Hi t c hc o c k t r i e d t o l o o k f o r s i g ns o f b r e a thingo r the c l i ent’ s o w n voliti onalm ove m ent a nd sa w none. H i t c hc o c ka l s o s a w b r o wn s t a i ns o n the p i l l o w c ase an d as ke d th e s on if th at w as blo od , bu t t h e s on sa id it w as si m plythe En sure thathe t ri ed to gi ve her that m or ni ng, w h ich h e s ai d she spato ut. A t that m om ent, the s on s te p p ed to w ar ds H i tchcoc k, tur ned offthe l i ght, and shut the door, bac ki ng H i tchcoc k in to the hal l w ay. H i tchcoc k fel t l i ke sh e had j ust s tepped “i nto a ho rr or m ovi e” and fear ed forhersa fety
. Contr ibuti ng to her fear w as th e son’s ap p aren t host il ity t o m ed ical care an d als o w h at H i t c h c oc k p er c eiv ed w as m en ta l ins ta b ili ty. She quick l y thanked the son, sai d that a careg i ver w oul d be s ent the next day, and l eft. Shak en and dis tr aught, H i tchcoc k dro ve str ai ght t o th e Ange l Cor ps o ffi ce , a 10

- to
- 15 m i nut e dr i ve , a nd w ent di re ctly t o her supervi sor . H i tchcoc k r el aye d ever yth ing to her, inc lud ing the son’s o d d b e h avior ( th ere i s v i g o r o u s d i s p u t e abo u twh e th e r th e e v i d e n c e s h o ws that H i tchcoc k speci fi cal l y tol d the supervi so r th at she f e a r e d f o r he r s a fe t y, b ut thi s f a c t t urns o utto be unneces sar y t o our an al ysi s)

. The super vi soras ked6 N o. 12

- 3515 H i tc hc o cki fs he s ho ul d c al l e m er g en cype r so nne l, a nd H itc h c oc k s aid ye s, b ec au se th e c lien t “ w as p os s i b ly dyi ng, o r a l r e a dy de a d. ” T he s up e r v i s o r c o nt a c t ed A du l t Pr ote cti ve Se rv i ces ( “A PS”) and left a m ess age . APS ca l l ed he r b ac k3 0 m i nut es l at era nd di r ec te d the su per vi so r t o c al l 9 11 , a nd the su p er vi so r c al l ed th e pol i ce. A n am bul ance was s ent, and it w as confi rm ed th atthe c l i en t ha d di ed. The s upervisor the n t o l d Hi tc hcock to enter th e cli en t’s ad m issi on into th e com p ut er; acc ord ing to H itchc ock, th ou gh ad m issi on pa p erw ork m ayb e co m pl et ed ea r ly on , the a dm i ss i o n itse lf i s no t

“ c o mpl e t e ” u nt i l i ti s e nt e r e d int o the comput e r . On A p ril16, A ng el Corp s su sp en d ed allof H itchc ock’s cl i ent v i si ts pend i ng i ts i nvest i gat i on i nto the i n ci dent, whi che ve ntua l l y r ev eal ed , am o ngo th erthi ng s, tha t th e c l i e n th a d b e e n d e a d f o r two o r th r e e d a y s b y th e t i me Hi t c hc o c kv i s i t e d h e r . OnMay3 , Hi t c hc o c kwa s fi r e d. I n the Disc i pli naryA ction Fo rm thatwas com ple ted and s ign ed byH i tchcoc k’ s s up er vi sorthe day she w as fi re d, the s up er vi sorwrote , u nd er“Reas on F orDis

ci pli naryA cti on, ” “ On 4/5/ 10 thi s e m plo yee co m ple ted a fulladm iss ion o n an e xpir ed cl i ent. ” Un der “ Corr ecti ve St eps Take n, ” s he wrote , “An gelCor ps and i ts m anage m en t st afffee l tha t as a r es ul t o fthi s empl o y ee ’ s ac ti o ns she c om prom i sed the heal th and safetyo fthi s cl i ent. A c c or d i n g t o p olic y a n d p ro c ed u re th is a c tio n w ill resu lt in an i m m ed iate te r m in ation.” In th e sup ervisor’s affi davi t i n thi s case , she tr i ed to expla i n thi s l anguage as follow s: H ad [ the c l i ent] bee n l i vi ng atthe ti m e Hitc hcock did heras ses sm ent (s u c h as wh en H i tchcoc k wasN o. 12

- 3515 7 origi na ll y sch ed uled to asses s [the cl ient on M arch 31]) H i tchcoc k would have com prom i sed the heal th and safetyo f[ the c l i ent] by notco nd ucti ng a proper a s s e s s men ta nd b y n o ta t t e nd i ngt o o r t a k i ngs t e ps f orA ngelCorps [ to] at tend to o bvi ous pr obl em s o f [ th e cl i en t] , s ucha s th e dr i ed l i qui d o n h ermouth. A n af f i da v i tfr o m a c o - o wne ro fAng e l Co r ps e xp l a i ne d th at H itc h c oc k w as fire d b ec au se sh e “p er for m ed a d e fic i e nta s s e s s men to n a p o t e nt i a l c l i e ntwh o h a d a l r e a dy pas se d a way, a nd the r e was no j us ti fi ca ti o n o r e xt en uat in g c irc u m st an c es for h er ac t i o n s.” It d id n otex p lain h ow th e a ss es sm en t w as “d efic ien t.” H itc h c ocksued A ngelCor ps f orfi ring hero n the basis of h er p re gn an c y, in v i o lat ion of T itle V II of t h e C ivil Right s A c t of19 64, as am ended by the Pre gnancy Disc rim in at ion A c t, 42 U .S.C . §§ 2 00 0e (k), et seq
. The part i es co ns en te d t o a dj udi ca ti o n b y a magi st r at e j udg e pur su a n tt o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 6 3 6 ( c )

. A n g e l C o r p s mo v e d f o r s u mmar y j ud g men t, wh i c h the ma g i s t r a t e j ud g e g r a nt e d. W e n ow co n sid er H itc h c oc k’s ap p ea l.

II. A N A L Y S IS S u mma r y j u d g me n t i s p r o p e r i f th e “ mo v a n t sh o ws that th er e i s no ge nuine dispute as to any m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j u d gm en t a s a m att ero f l aw. ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a)

. W e r ev i ew a ru li ng g r an ting sum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo . A riz a no vsk a v. Wa l-M a rt Store s, Inc. , 682 F.3d 698 , 702 (7th C ir. 2012). T he Pregnancy Disc ri m i nati on A ct am ended Ti tl e VII to proh ibi t e m plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on “ because o fo r on8 N o. 12

- 3515 the b asi s o fpre gnancy, ch ild bi rth, o r re l ate d m edi cal condi ti ons. ” 4 2 U.S

. C. § 2 000e ( k)

. “Gener al l y s p ea king, ther e a re two w ay s o fpro vi ng such a cl ai m : the ‘ dir ect’ m etho d ofpro ofand the ‘ i nd i re ct’ m etho d ofp ro of.” C o llins v . Am er. R ed C ross , ___ F

. 3d __, N o. 11

- 33 45 , 2 013 W L 8 5 6 5 1 2 , a t * 3 ( 7 th C i r . Ma r . 8 , 2 0 1 3 )

. “ Un der t he dir ec t m etho d, a pl ai nti ffm ust pro vi de ei therdi re ct or cir c ums t a nt i a l e v i de nc e tha tthe e mpl o y e r h a d a di sc r i mi na t o r y mo t i v a t i o n. And u nd e r the ind i r e c tme tho d, a p lainti ffm ust s ati sfy the well

- w or n re quir em ents of M c D o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 41 1 U.S

. 79 2 ( 1973 )

. ” Id. ( c ita ti ons om i tte d). H avi ng r eci ted the abo ve sta nd ar ds, w e h as te n to j oin in t h e g ro w in g c h or u s o f op in ion s in thi s ci rcui t, s igned ont o by a m aj or i ty ofact i ve j ud ges , th atha ve e xpr es se d fr us tr at i o n wi ththe c o nfus i ng “snar l s a nd kno ts” o fthi s ossi fi ed dir ect/i nd i re ct para di g m, a nd tha th a v e s ug g e s t e d a mo r e s t r a i ghtfor w ar d an aly sis of w h et h er a r ea so n ab le jur y c ou ld in fer p ro h i b i te d d isc rim in at ion
. Se eCol e m an v. D onah oe, 667 F. 3d 835, 86 3 ( 7th Ci r. 2 01 2) ( W oo d, J

. , co ncurr i ng) ( “By now,

. . . the var i ou s tes ts that w e insi st l aw yer s use ha ve lost their utili ty.
. . . I n ord er to defeat sum m ary j ud gm ent, the pla i nti ffo ne way orthe other m ust pr es en t ev i den ce tha t sh e i s i n a c l as s p rotect ed bythe st a t ut e , tha ts he s uffe r e d the r e qu i s i t e a dv e r s e a cti on (dep en d ing on h er theory), an d that a rati o n a l j ury coul d concl ud e that the em plo yerto ok th at adver se ac ti on on acco unto fhe r pr o te ct ed cl as s, no t f o r a ny no ni nvi dio us r eas on. Put di ffer entl y, i t s eem s t o m e that th e tim e has com e to coll ap se a ll t h ese test s into one.”); N a f i cy v. Ill. D ep’t o

f H um a n S ervs. , 6 9 7F

. 3 d 5 0 4 , 5 1 4 ( 7thN o. 12

- 3515 9 Cir

. 20 12) ( ci ti ng Cole m an c o nc urren ce w ith ap p roval); G o o d v . U niv . of C hi. M ed. C tr. , 6 7 3 F.3d 670, 680 (7th Cir. 20 12 ) ( “the di r ect and i ndi r ec t m etho ds f o r pr o vinga nd ana l y z i nge mpl o y men tdi s c r i mi na t i o n c a s e s . . . h ave beco me t o o c o mpl e x, t o o r i g i d, a nd t o o f a r r e mov ed f ro m the sta tutor y quest i on o fdi scr i m i nator y c au satio n ”); Harperv. C.R . E ngland, Inc. , 68 7 F

. 3d 297, 31 3- 14 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( d i scussing Cole m an co nc ur r en ce a nd applyi nga mor e st r ea m l i ne d, c o l l aps ed ve r si o n o fthe dir ect/i nd i re ct tes ts ); s e eal s o Ki ng v. Acos t a S al e s an d M arket ing, Inc. , 67 8 F

. 3d 47 0, 474 ( 7th Ci r . 20 12) ( “the burden- shi fti ng appro ach m ay cause m or e co nfus i on th an can be j us tified by its ben efi ts”). H i tchcock form al l y di scl ai m s r el i ance o n the “i nd i re ct” m etho d o fpr o o fs o t ec hni ca l l y we ar e to c o nfi ne o ur an al y si s to whethe r Hi tchc o ckha s pr o ffer ed su ffi ci en t ev i den ce o fa di sc r i m i na to r y mot i va ti o n un derthe “di r ec t” meth o d. Butwhethe r we o ffi ci al l y a p pl y the “d ire c t” m et h od or a m or e s tr aig h tfo rw ar d an aly sis of d isc rim in at or y c au sa tio n (th er e is little d isc er n ible di ffer en ce i n thi s case), w e fi nd tha t a g en ui ne i ss ue of m at er ial fa c t e x ist s fo r tr ial.

A . T h ere i s S u ff icient Evid en ce th at A n gel Corp s’s Prof f er ed E xpla nati ons f orFi r i ng H i t chcock W er e Pr et ext ual In t h is c ase i t m ake s s ense to fi rs t a nal yze wh ether ther e i s e vi dence thatA ngelCor ps’s pro ffer ed non- discri m i nator y r eas ons f orfi ring H i tchcoc k were pre textual, thati s, phony. SeeM il lbrookv. IB P, Inc. , 28 0 F

. 3d10 N o. 12

- 3515 1169 , 1175 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Pretex t m ean s a l ie, sp ecifi cal l y a phony r eas on f orso m e a cti on. ” ( i nter nal qu ot atio n m ar ks om it t ed )); A ta nu s v. P erry, 52 0 F

. 3d 662, 67 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( prete xt can be evid ence ofdi scr i m i natio n u n d er d ire c t m et h od ). A fte r all, if th er e is n o ev id en ce of pretex t, t he n A ng el Corp s’s non -discrim inatory j us ti fi c a t i o ns f o r fi r i ngHi t c hc o c kmus tb e b e l i e v e d, w h ich n ec es sa rily p re c lu d es liab i l i ty u n d er T itle V II. C f. Sc r uggs v. Gar t s Se e d Co. , 587 F.3d 8 32, 838 ( 7th Cir. 2009 ) ( “The pri m a f aci e ca se and prete xt a n alys es often ov er l ap, so we have s ai d that we can proce ed dire c tly to th e prete xt i nquir y i fthe defe nd ant o ffer s a nondi scrim inatory reason f or i ts action
. ”). W e co un t at l eas t four potenti al l y di ffer ent e xplanati o ns g i ve n f o r Hi tc hc o ck ’ s fi r i ng . Two ex pl an at i o ns we r e g i v e n o n M a y 3 , 2 0 1 0 , wh e n Hi t c hc ockwa s fi r e d: th atHi tc hco ck“ co m pl et ed a ful l a dm i ss i o n o n a n e xpir ed cl i ent” and that H itc hcock ’ s “ acti ons com prom i sed th e he alth an d safety of th is cli en t.” T he su p ervisor’s affi davi t pr offer s a nother : thatH i tchcock woul d h ave com prom i sed t h e heal th and safetyo fthe cl i ent had sh e b e en aliv e b y fa ilin g t o d ea l w ith th e “ d rie d liqu id on her m ou th” a nd byf ai l i ng to ta ke othe r unspecifi ed step s. T he affidav it from on e of A ng el Corp s’s ow ne rs pr o f f er s y e ta no the r : tha tHi t c hc o c k“ pe r f o r med a defi ci ent a ss essm ent o n a pot enti alcl i ent who had alr ea d y p as se d aw ay .” W e find thes e s hi fti ng expl anati ons to be s uffi ci ently i nc o ns i st en t o r o th er wi se s us pec t to c r ea te a r ea so nabl e infe re nce that t h ey do not re fl ect the r ealr eas on f orN o. 12

- 3515 11 H itc h c oc k’s firin g. SeeRudi n v . Li nc ol n L and Cm ty. Col l ege, 42 0 F. 3d 712, 72 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “One can r eas ona b ly i nferpr et ex t f r o m an e m pl o y er ’ s sh i ftingo r i nc o ns i st en t ex p lanation s for th e ch all en ged em p loym en t d ecision.”). A r ati onalj urorco uld fi nd the supervi sor ’ s e xplana ti on that H i tchcoc k “ w oul d have” c om prom i sed the heal th and safetyo fthe cl i ent t o be s uspec t b ec au se i t nev er speci fi es w hat Hitc hcockdi d w ro ng ( and nei therdoes the r espondent b ri ef’ s pos t- hoc, vague expl anati on that H i tchcoc k’ s “ f ai l ure t o do a fulladm i ssi on co m prom ised the h ealth an d safet y of othe r pote nt ialcli en ts”). Bu t m or e i m port antl y, it contra dict s the pl ai n l anguage on the Di sci plina ry A cti on F or m wh i ch the supervi sor hers el ffi l l ed out, thatH i tchcoc k d ire ctl y “ com prom i sed th e hea lth an d safety of t h i s cli en t” (em p ha sis add ed ). Pe r ha ps th e su per vi so r ’ s affi dav i t was m erel y t r y i ng t o c lar ify th e la n gu ag e o n th e F or m , sin c e itis i m possibl e t o “co m prom i se the he al th and safety ” o f so m eo n e w h o is a lre ad y d ea d (an d th e s u p er vis or w ell k ne w by M ay3 tha t th e cl i en t was a l r ea dy d ead a t th e tim e H itc h c o c k v i sit ed ). B u t a rea so n ab le jur or co u ld al so fin d t h e e xplanat i on o n the offi ci alFo rm i tse l fto be s o l ud i c r o us tha tAng e l Co r ps i s n o tt o b e b e l i e v e d. See, e . g. , Lou de r m i l k v. Bes t Pall e t C o ., LLC, 63 6 F

. 3d 312, 31 5 (7t h C i r. 20 11) ( “The Civ i l Ri ghts A ct o f19 64 does not re quir e e m plo yer s t o have ‘ j ust cau se’ f orsa cki ng a w or ker, but an em plo yer w ho a dvances a fi shy r eas on takes the risk that disbe li ef ofthe reaso n w il l su p p ort an i nfe re nce that i t i s a pre text f ordi scr i m i nati on. ” ( ci tat i on om itted )) ; Stalt erv. Wal-M art Store s, Inc. , 19 5 F. 3d 285, 29 0 ( 7th Ci r . 19 99 ) ( empl o y ee ’ s fi r i ng f o r “the ft” becau se he12 N o. 12

- 3515
to o ka few pot at o chi ps fr o m a c o - wor k er ’ s o penb agi n the br e a k r o o m wh e r e th e c o - wo r k e r d i d n o t o bj e c t t o t he t a k i n g, d e fi e d “ a n y c o mmo n u n d e r s t a n d i n go fth e t e r m” and so l acke d cre dibi l i ty)

. W he th erthe For m ’ s l anguage i s s i m plya product o fbure aucra tic im preci si on, o r w hetherthe subsequent affi davi t i s instea d a post

- hoc att em pt to co vertr acks , we l eave to the j ury to deci de. A s f orthe For m ’ s e xplanat i on that Hitc hcockwas fi re d because she “com p leted a fulladm i ssi on o n an expi re d cl i en t,” thatexpl anati on i s underm i ned by H itc h c oc k’s te s t i m o n y t h at th e s u p er vis or h er se lf told H i tchcoc k t o enterthe adm i ssi on i nto the c om pu ter ( whi ch“ co m pl et es ” i t ac co r di ngt o Hi tc hc o ck, a nd w e defero n sum m ary j ud gm ent t o H i tchcoc k’ s char act e r i z a t i o n o f wh a t “ c o mp l e t e s ” me a n s i n An g e l Co r ps p arlanc e) a

fter the s up er vi sorknew th at the cl i ent was d ea d

. Cf. , e . g. , Sta lter, 195 F. 3d at 290 ( em plo yer ’ s e xplan at ion th at em p loy ee w a s f i re d for s te alin g c h ip s c ou ld be pr ete x tu al w hen the em plo yerknew that the per son from w hom the ch ips w ere “stolen ” w as fi ne w ith it)

. M or eov er, the For m ’ s e x p lan ati on co ncer ni ng the as ses sm ent s eem s inconsi ste nt with th e co- own er ’ s cr i ti ci sm ofH itc hcock ’ s a sse ssm ent forbeing “defi ci ent” ( f or un ex p lai ne d reason s). A n ge l Cor ps’s br i efat tem pts to m ake se nse o ut o f th es e d ispar at e ex pl an at i o ns , b uti t do es s o b y pi l i ng on a dd i ti onalev er - evo l ving j usti fi cati ons that m ay cause a r eas onabl e j urorto w on d erwh etherA ngelCor ps can ev er ge t i t s st or y s tr aig h t. Se eZacc agni niv. Char l e s Le vy Cir cu l at i ng Co. , 3 3 8 F

. 3 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o ns i d-N o. 12

- 3515 13

er i ngne w expl an at i o ns r ai se d i n s um m ar y j udg m en t bri ef s, o bser vi ng, “the co nsi ste ncy o fthe expla nati on pr o vi ded bya n e m pl o yer a t th e ti m e o fa n e m pl o y m en t d ecision .
. . i s evide nc e of th e veracity of t h e em p loyer’ s expla nati on a t s um m ar y j ud gm ent”)

. The br i ef’ s cl ea re st a r g u me n ti s tha tH i t c h c o c kw a s fi r e d f o r f a i l i n gt o i mmed i a t e l y c a l l 9 1 1 a ft e r l e a v i ngthe hous e , wh i c h we do not den y w oul d have probabl y b een the be st cour se ofact i on. But th e q u est i on i s whether thi s e xplanat i on actual l y r efl ects wh y Angel Cor ps fi re d H itc hcocko n M ay 3, 20 10, notwh et h er it provi des an a dequ ate post
h oc j u st ifica tio n n ow . Se e, e . g. , P eirickv. Ind . U niv .- P urdue U niv . Indianapolis A thle ti cs D ep’t, 51 0 F

. 3d 681, 69 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “[ W ] e fi nd I U PU I ’ s pos t ho c expl anations, delay, e x a ggeration, and un us ua l con d uc t m ore th ane no ug h t o c r ea te a que st i o n o ff ac t concern ing th e legi tim acy of i ts ex p lanation s for Pe iri ck’s te rm ination.”). W e fin d th at a re as on ab le jur or co u ld be liev e t h at th is w as no t A ng el Corp s’s actu al m otivation. Th e fai lure to i m m edi ate l y c al l 91 1

— an ex p lan at ion t h a t co u ld have been eas i l y e xpresse d

— i s no t m enti oned on the Di sc ip lin ar y A c tio n For m , an d it is n ote v e n m en tio n ed in the par t o f t h e s up er vi sor ’ s a ffi davi t that a tte m pts to expla i n w hy H i tchcoc k was fire d

. See N or m an A ff

. ¶ 2 0; E m m el v. Co ca -C o la Bo tt li ng C o. of Chi. , 95 F. 3d 627, 63 4 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( “Co ca - Co l a’s fail ur e to e xpr es s th i s ex pl a na t i o n e a r l i e r de s pi t e s e v e r a l o pp o r t un i t i es t o do so” w a s “com p ell ing” evid en ce of pretex t). H itchc ock’s f ai l ur e to i m m edi atel y c al l 9 11 do es no t ev enfl unkthe te st th at th e s u p er vis or h er se lf se t f o r t h e lse w h er e in her affi davi t: “i fa Cli ent S er vi ces Superv i so r ob serves a14 N o. 12

- 3515

m edi cali ssue w i th a cl i ent they a re eitherto attem pt to a d d r e s s th e p r o b l e m o r to info rm m e or som eon e at A n g el C orps so that we m ay provide the c li entwith t he appropri ate assist ance . ” N o r m anAf f

. ¶ 3 ( emphas i s adde d)

. The l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e r e q u i r e me n twa s s a t i s fi e d wh e n Hi t c hcockwent str ai ght t o her supervi sorwith the i ssue after lea vin g t h e c lien t’s h om e (in d ee d , t h e fac t t h at sh e d id ex ac tly whats he w as su p po se d t o i s an o th err ea so n why a jur or co u ld rea so n ab ly d isb elie ve A n ge l C or p s). Se e, e . g. , Wi l l i am s v. B r i s t ol

-M ye rs Sq ui b b Co. , 85 F. 3d 270, 27 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( e mp l o y e r ’ s c l a i m t ha ti tfi r e d a n e mplo yee f orf al si fyi ng r eco rds c oul d be pre textualwh en the c om pany’s co de coul d not r eas onabl y b e r ead to su ppo r t ani nt er p retat i o n tha t th e empl o y ee ha d a ctual l y f al si fi ed r ec o r ds)

. F ur th er m ore , e ve n a fte r Hi tc hc oc k t old th e s u p er vis or th a t th e c lien t w as “p os sib ly dyi ng, o r al re ad y dead, ” the super vi sorher sel fdi d not cal l 91 1 i m m edi ate l y b ut i nstea d cal led A P S, l eft a voicem ail, then w a ited for anoth er 30 m inu tes before A PS e xpli ci tl y instr ucted the supe rv isor to re ach o ut to em er ge n c y s er vic e s. W h et h er th e s u p er vis or ac tu ally c ar ed ab ou t H itc h c oc k’s failu re to ca ll 91 1 im m ed iat ely i s th er efo r e ano penque st i o n. The bri efal so expla i ns tha t Hitc hcock“co m ple ted an a ss ess m ent that was so defi ci ent i t di d not r eve al th at[ th e cl i en t] ha d b een d ea d f o r da y s, ” buta g ain, no th i ngi n the r ec o r d s ug g es ts thi s was the r ea so n Hi tc hcock wa s fi r e d. To b e f a i r, pe r ha ps tha t i s wha t the co own erm eant w h en he sai d vaguel y that Hitc hcock “pe r f o r m ed a defi ci en t as se ss m en t o n a pot en ti alc l i en t w ho had al re ady passe d aw ay” ( w here he fai l ed toN o. 12

- 3515 15

ex pl ain e xa ct l y ho w i t was “ defi ci en t”). W e l ea ve t o the j ury to re sol ve thi s am bi gui ty by deci ding w heth er th at was whathe mean t, o r whether h e was j us t pr o vi di ng a co ncl usor y e xplanat i on devo i d of m eani ng to di str act fro m so m e o th er rea so n for firin g h er . Se e, e . g. , E m m el , 95 F. 3d at 635 ( al though a ge neri c l aw yer l y e xplanat i on f ort h e p l ai nti ff’ s fi ring “m ay have see m ed cl eve r at th e tim e, a j ury co uld see it as an attem p t to stone w all ”). Both the m agi str ate j ud ge and Angel Corps s ugges t th atthe abo ve i s a “m er e quibb l e o ve r l an g ua g e, ” an d em phasi ze that al l o fthe abov e e xplanations at l eas t shar e a si ngl e consi ste ncy: the A pri l 5 i nci dent. It m ay ver y wel l be that the Ap ri l 5 i nci dent w as an em bar ra ssm entt o Ang e l Co r ps , a nd tha tHi t c hc o c k ’ s me r e i nv o l vem ent in that i ncid en t w as enough t o getherfi re d, eve n if A n ge l C or p s c ou ld n otp u t it s f i n ge r on p re c ise ly w ha t H i tc hc o ckdi d wro ngtha t day

. And i ftha t were th e true reas on for H itchc ock’s fi ring, how ever u nfair, f oo l i sh, o r arbi tr ar y th at m ay see m , i t would notbe a Tit l e VI Ivi ol ati on, and a r eas onabl e j ury m ay w el l ar ri ve at th at co n c lu sio n . S e e Col e m an , 6 6 7F

. 3 d a t8 5 2 ( we do no ta s ki n T i t l e V I Ic a s e s wh e th e r th e r e a s o n f o r fi r i ng w as “i naccu ra te orunfa i r, ” o r w hetherthe em plo yer w as “w ro ng ab out i ts em plo yee ’ s per f orm ance, o r m ay b e t oo h ar d on its em p loy ee ”); Van Ant werp v . City of P eori a, Il l. , 627F.3d 2 95 , 298 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ) (n o T itle V II vi ol ati on i fexpl anati on was a m er e “e rror, o dd i ty, o r o ver si g ht ” )

. Bu ta r e a s o nab l e j ur y mi g hta l s o c o nc l ud e th atAngel C orps di d no t “h o ne st l y b el i ev e[ ] the r ea so ns it h as offe re d to ex p lain th e d isc h ar ge .” C o l e m an , 6 67 F

. 3d at8 52
. Hi tc hc o ckha s th er efo r e pr off er ed su ffi ci en t evi dence ofpre text.16 N o. 12

- 3515 B. A Reasonable J uryCould Con cl ud e t hat A ngel Cor ps’s R eal Reason f orFi r i ng H i t ch c ock W as H erPre gnancy Of co ur se , a sh o wi ng o f pr et ex t al o ne i s no t enou gh; th e pl aint i ff m us t al so sh o w tha t th e ex pl an at i o ns are a p re te x t fo r th e p ro h ibit ed an im u s. See V a n A ntw erp , 6 27 F. 3d at 298; Wernsin g v . D e p ’ t of H um a n S ervs. , 42 7 F

. 3d 46 6 , 4 6 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ T h e p l a i n t i ff th e n b e a r s th e b u rd en to show that the sta ted reason i s a pret ex t for a d ecision reall y m ad e on p rohibited criteria.”)

. H ere w e find suffi ci ent evi dence to supp or t thi s showing. If H i tchcoc k’ s e vi dence i s t o be b el i eve d, w hi ch i t m us t be at thi s s tag e, th e supervi soras ked H i tchcoc k i fshe w as “quit ti ng” ( not w hethershe i ntended to tak e m ate rni ty lea ve ) ba se d so lely on h er p re gn an c y, an d ex p licit ly re com m ended to the co

- w orke r that the c o- w or kerge t an abo rt ion be cause her pregnancy would l ead to “a tte n d an c e” p ro b lem s. Se eHas an v. Fo l ey & Lar dner LLP, 552 F.3d 520, 52 9 (7th Cir. 2008) (“ ‘beh avior tow ard orco m m ents dir ecte d at o therem p loy ee s in the pr ote c ted gr oup’ i s o ne ty pe ofci rcum sta nti alev i dence that can supportan infe re nce o fdi scr im inati on” ( ci tat i on om i tte d))

. A ni m us to w ar ds pregnan t wom en m ay be i nfe rr ed base d on thes e co m m ents; s p eci fi cal l y, a bel i ef th at p re gn an c y d isq u alifie s w om en from effe c tiv ely parti ci pat i ng i n the w or kf or ce. A ngelCor ps ar gues that “[ t] he f act that [ the s up er vis or ] as ked H i tchcoc k i fshe i nten d ed t o re turn t o w or k a fterherpre gnancy d em ons trates th at A ng el Corp s inte n d e d to retain her, al l thi ngs b ei ng equal

. ” ( The m agi str ate j ud ge provi ded a s i m i l ar l y b eni gn g l oss o n the supervi sor ’ s s tat em ent,N o. 12

- 3515 17 noti ng tha t the super viso r “ask ed [ H i tchcoc k] wh ether she was g oi ng to c ontinue he r em plo ym ent a t An gel Cor ps afte r s he ga ve b i r th

. ”) Buta cc o r di ngt o Hi tc hcock ’ s a ffi davi t, hersuperv i soras ked h er if she was “quit ti ng. ” The di ffer ence m ay be s ubtl e, but it i s s i gni fi cant in ter m s o fr efl ecting a n im us, and w e do not const rue the r ecord in f avo r ofthe partym oving f or su m m ar y jud gm en t. Se e, e . g. , She e han v. D onl e n Corp. , 173 F. 3d 1039 , 10 44- 45 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( com m ents i ncl ud i ng, “I fyo u have anotherbaby, I ’ l l i nvi te you to sta y ho m e, ” a nd “Gi na, yo u’r e no t co m i ng ba c k after th is b ab y,” co u ld h a v e b e e n int er p re te d by a re as on ab le j ury as an i m us, ev en i ftheyco uld al so be inter prete d as an i nn ocen t j oke). Ang e l Co r ps a s s e r t s tha twe h a v e “ r e pea t e dl yh e l d” th at th es e t yp es of st at em en ts “d o n otco n st itu te ev idence ofpre gnancy disc rim i nati on, ” ci ti ng Ilh a rdt v . Sara Le eCorp. , 11 8 F

. 3d 1151 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97). But Il hardt on ly sai d t h at “sta tem ents express i ng doubt that a wom an w i l l r etur n to work fu ll-tim e a fterhavi ng a baby do not const i tute dire ct ev id en c e o f p re gn an c y d i s c rim in at ion .” Id. at11 56 (em p h as is a d d ed ); s e ealso i d. ( r efer r i ng to “d ire ct” an d “circum stan tial” evid en ce sep arately). H er e, the supervi sor ’ s pot enti ally o ffensi ve sta tem ents ar e a t l eas t cir cum st antial ev id en c e o fp re gn an c y d isc rim in at ion , bec au se th e y c a n be a m an ifes ta tio n of p re c ise ly th e k in d of p rej u d ice d be lief th at th e P re gn an c y D isc rim inati on Act w as desi gned to co m bat

— the s t e r e o ty pe that w om en, part i cul ar l y m othe rs , bel ong i n the hom e. See C a l. Fed. Sa v. a nd Lo a n A ss’n v . Gu erra , 47 9 U.S

. 27 2, 28 6 n . 19 (1 98 6); She e han , 1 7 3 F

. 3 d a t1 0 4 5 ( “ D i s c r i mi nati on o n th e basi s o fpre gnancy i s par t o fdi scr i m i na-18 N o. 12

- 3515

H i t c h c o c k ’ s S t a t e me n t o f F a c t s e mph a s i z e s th a t, wi th t he 1 exc epti on of the com m ent on M arch 25, her supervis or s eem ed t o a c t i v e l y a v o i d a n y wo r k p l a c e c o n v e r s a t i o n c o n c e rn i ng he r pre gna nc y , i n c ont ra s tt o h erc o- worke rs , who a l l “c ong r a t u l a t e d me w h e n th e y h e a r d th e n e w s a n d s h a r e d i n my j oy,” “ask[ ed] how m y pregnan cy w as going, w hen m y next doc t or ’ s appo i nt [ m en t ] was goi ng to be , an d i fI ha d m or ni ng si ckness yet. ” To the ex tentthatH it chcock s u ggests that f ail ure t o di sp la y s uch enthusi asm ough t t o be const rued as an im u s, w e d isag ree. M an y p reg na nt w om en reas o n a b ly bel i ev e th a ti n q u i r i e s fr o m c o - wo r k e r s o r s u p e r v i s o r s i n t o the d etails or sta t u s o f the ir p reg na nc y are b oth inap p ro p riate and i nt rusiv e, e venwhi l e othe rs l i ke Hit c hc oc k m ay enj oy the m . So w e d o n ot c o n si d er relev an t the su p erv isor’s u nw illing ne ss to eng ag e in su ch con v ersatio ns o n o the r d ay s. ti on a gainst wom en, and one of the s ter eotypes i nvol ved i s that w om en ar e l ess desi rabl e e m plo yee s be cause they ar e l i abl e t o beco m e pre gn an t. This w as one of Congre ss’ co ncer ns i n passi ng th e P re gnancy Disc ri m i natio n A c t.” ); cf

. , e . g. , Hac ke t tv . Cl i

f t on Gu n de rs on , L
. L
. C. , N o. 03 C 60 46 , 2 004 W L 24453 73, at* 4 ( N
. D. I l l

. N ov. 1, 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ T h o u g h s t a t e me n t s v o i c i n gd o ub tth a ta n e mplo yee wil l r etur n to work aft erhavi ng a baby do not co ns ti tu te di r ec t e vi den ce o fpr egna nc y di sc r i m i na ti o n, these sa m e s tat em ents m ay suffi ce under the M cD onnell D ougl as fra m ew or k. ” ( ci tat i on o m i tte d))

. W e thi nk tha t a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r c o u l d i n t e r p r e tth e s u p e r v i s o r ’ s c o mm en t as refl ectin g this belief

. 1 Fu rt h e rm or e, th e s u p er vis or ’s im m ed iat e c h an ge in tr eat m ent t owards H i tchcock a fterl ear ni ng o fherpre gna nc y, esp eciall y the sub stan tial incre a s e in H itchc ock’sN o. 12

- 3515 19

wor k l o ad i nv o l vingthe su d d ena nd a no m al o us s hi fting ofm ult i ple r esponsibi l i ti es f ro m o therem plo yees, al so ev id en c es d isc rim in at or y a n im u s. Se e, e . g. , Cole m an , 66 7 F. 3d at 861 ( evi dence ofr eta l i atio n w h er e, am ong othe r e v i d e n c e , w i th i n a mo n th a ft e r th e p l a i n t i fffi l e d c o mpl aint s, the pl aint i ffr ec ei ve d “ a ne w and unpl ea sa nt w or k a ssi gnm ent”)

. A ngelCor ps em phasi zes the f act that H i tchcoc k’ s incre ase d w or kl oad st i l l r em ai ned wi th i n th e s c o p e o f h e r o ffi c i a l j o b d e s c r i p t i o n, b ut th at m i sse s the poi nt. The poi nt i s that Hitc hcockwas tr eat ed si gni fi cantl y d if fe re ntly

— and i n a m anner that a rea so n ab le j u ry c ou ld fin d d ev iat ed a n om alo u sly f ro m st andard prac ti ce

— a fter the s up er vi sorl ear ned of he r pr egna nc y . W e ar e una war e o f an y ca se sugg es ting that di ffe r e nt i a l t r e a t men to n the b a s i s o fa p r o hib i t ed ca te g o r y ne ve r su g g es ts an i m us so l o ng as th e tr ea tment i s t echni cal l y per m i ssibl e und erthe col d ter m s o fan offi ci alj ob descri pti on ( especi al l y a j ob descri pti on a s vague an d lim itl ess as the one i n thi s ca se, wh i ch i nc l ude d do i ng “[ o ] th er dut i es a s as si gne d b y [ th e] Cl i en t Se rv ice s D ire c to r” ). C f. Ro dgers v. W

hite, 65 7 F

. 3d 511, 51 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( “Fo rm alj ob ti tl es an d r ank a re not dispos itiv e; an em plo yercannot‘ i nsul ate i tse l ffro m c laim s o f rac ial d isc rim in at io n ’ by m ak in g for m alis tic d isti nc tions bet w een em p loyees.” (citation om itted ))

. Las tly, the s upe r vi so r ’ s o ffensi ve c o m m en t to Hi tc hcockand hersudd en c h an ge i n tr eat m ent t owards her o cc ur r ed a l i tt l e o ve r a m o nth be f o r e sh e was fired. And i t o cc ur r ed l es s th antwo wee k s be f o r e th e i nc i den t whi ch, a r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fin d i n l i g hto fa l l the ev i den ce abov e, pr o vi ded a co nv en i en t ho o kf o r the su p ervisor to concre tely exp ress he r discrim inatory20 N o. 12

- 3515 in te n t. Se eFl e i s hm an v. Cont i nen ta l Cas
. Co. , 69 8 F

. 3d 598, 60 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( “[ I ] sol ate d com m ents ar e no t proba ti ve ofd i scr i m i nati on un l ess they ar e ‘ co ntem po ran eo us w ith the disc ha rge orcausa l l y r el ate d to the di sc ha r g e de c i s i o n- mak i ngp r o c e s s . ’ ” ( em ph a s i s a dde d, c ita tio n om itt ed )); cf. C o le m an , 66 7 F

. 3d at 860 ( “W hen tem pora l pro xi m i ty i s o ne am ong seve ra l til es in a n ev id en tia ry m os aic d e p ict in g re ta liat or y m ot ive , . . . su sp ici ou s tim ing can som etim es raise an inferenc e of a ca us alc o nne ct i o n. ” ( ci ta ti o n a nd i nt erna l a l te r at i o ns om itt ed )); L ou de r milk, 6 36 F

. 3d at3 15 ( “S us pi ci o us t i m i ng m ay be j u st that

— su spi ci o us

— and a suspi ci on i s no t enough t o getpast a m oti on fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent. Occasi on all y, however, an a dvers e a cti on co m es so cl ose o n the heel s o fa prot ect ed a c t that a n i nfe re nce of caus ation is sensible.”)

. I n s um , w e find tha t th e ev i den ce pr o vi des a s uffi ci en t basi s f or a ra ti onal j ury to concl ud e th at H itchcock w as fi re d beca u se she was pre gnant. N atur al l y, A ngel C orp s d ispu tes several of th e criti cal fact u a l asserti ons m ade by H i tchcoc k. W e l eave i t t o the j ury to deci de w hom to bel i eve .

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe above- sta ted r eas ons, we R EVER S E the m agi str ate j ud ge’s grant ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r o fthe d ef e nd a nta nd R EMA ND f o r pr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

6- 11- 13