### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-2553

V I C TORI A H ARP E R

, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

F UL TO N C OUNT

Y , I L L I N O I S , Defen dant-Appellee.

Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the

Central Distri ct o f Il l i noi s. No. 10 -CV- 01 42 3 — Micha el M. Mi hm , Judg e.

A RGU E D F E B R

UAR Y 20, 2014

— D E C I D E D A PRI L 8, 2014

Before E AS T E R

B R OO K , M AN I O N

, and S YKE S

, Circ uit Judges.
M AN I O N , Cir cui t Ju dg e

. After the Fulton County Board

v ote d not t o r ai se the salary of the County T reasurer , Vi ctor i a Harper , she fi led a § 1983 acti on a g a ins t t he County for sex di scri minati on. The County mov ed for sum mary judgment. After consi dering Harper’ s sex di scri minati on clai m under both the di rect and indi rect metho d s, the di stric t court conclud ed that the clai m fai led as a matter of law , and gr anted the2 No. 13-2553 County’ s motion for sum mary judgment. Harper appeals. W e affi rm. I. Facts
Vi ctor i a Harper has serv ed as County T reasurer for Fulton County , Illi noi s, since 1994. The County T reasurer i s e l e ct ed and serv es a four -y ear ter m. See Ill. Cons t

. a r t. VII, § 4(c) ; 55 ILCS 5/3-10001. Af t e r he r electi on in 1994, Harper w as reelected in 1998, 2002, 2006, and 201 0. Pursu ant to the Illi noi s Counties Code, the Fulton County Board—a bod y composed of tw enty-one memb ers—i s empow ered t o set the salari es for the County T

reasurer , the County Clerk, and o t her elected offi ci als. See 55 ILCS 5/4-6001. The Board’ s Fin ance Commi tte e i s composed of fi v e members of t he Board and focuses on the County’ s budget, expen d i tu re s, an d ge n e ra l financi al si tuation. The Fin ance Commi tte e makes an ini tial recommendati on to the Board reg ardin g th e salar i es o f t he County T reasurer and County Clerk

. Fr om 1983–2002, the Co un t y T reasurer and County Clerk w e r e p a id the same salary

. In the early 2000s, Ro na l d Rumler

, the County Clerk, announc ed hi s deci si on to ret i re. Th e County Board v ote d to increase Rumler’s salary in
or der to allow hi m to receiv e gr eater ret i rement benefi ts. Thus, from 2003–2006, the County Clerk ’s salary exceeded the County T

reasurer ’s salary

. After Rumler’s ret i rement, the new County Clerk, James Nelson, and the County T reasurer w ere pai d the same sal ary from 2007–2010.
In the y ears leading up to 201 0, how ev er , di sputes aro se betw een Harper a nd t he members of the Fin ance Commi tte e and the Board. These di sputes seem to hav e prompte d the Fin ance Commi tte e to recommend again st increasing theNo. 13-2553 3

C o unt y T

reasurer ’s salary for her ter m in offi ce commenc ing in December 2 0 1 0

. At that tim e, the members of the Fin ance 1 Commi tte e w ere Bob Buch er , St ev e Conklin, Mat Fletcher , Ed Huggin s, and Rob Malot t. At i ts May 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , meetin g, the Board adopted thi s recommendati on b y a v ote of 10–8. At the

same meetin g, the Board v ote d (16–2) to giv e the County Clerk annual pay rais es for the ter m commenc ing in December 2010. As a result, Harper’ s salary remain ed $58,300 from 2010–2013, whi le Nelson’s salary start ed at $64,300 and ro se to $71,300 for the same peri od. Harper beli ev ed that the deci si on to deny her p ay rais es whi le aw ardin g p a y r a ises to Nelson w as the result of sex di scri minati on on the part of a cr it ica l mass of the male members of the Board. She responded by fi ling a § 1983 acti on again st the Count y for sex di scri minati on in compensation in violatio n o f the Four teenth Amendment’s Equal Prot ecti on C lause. The County mov ed for sum mary judgment. The

2 County i denti fi ed a numb er of justifi cati ons for de ny ing Harper pay rais es, mo st of them centered aro und her w or k perfor manc e. The di stric t court gr anted sum mary judgment in fav or of the Co unty

. Harper appeals.

Because the posi tio n of Co unty Treasurer i s an el ected one, there coul d b e 1

no g uarantee tha t Harper woul d succeed i n her 20 10 b i d fo r re-e l ecti on. However, the Co unty conce des tha t the Bo ard ful l y expected Harper to b e
re-e l ected i n 20 10

.
Her l aws uit i nclud ed other causes of actio n tha t are not at i ssue i n this 2 appeal.4 No. 13-2553

II. Disc uss ion
On appeal, Harper contends that the di stric t court err ed in conclu ding that her sex di scri minati on clai m fai led as a matter of law

. W e rev i ew the deci si on to gr ant a sum mary judgment motion de novo and construe the evidenc e in the l ight most fav or able to Harp e r

, the nonmoving party

. See Fed. R. Ci v

. P

. 56(a); Serednyj v

. Beverly Healthca re, LLC, 656 F .3d 540, 547 (7th Ci r

. 2011). W

e mus t de t e r min e whether the evidenc e, so construed, establi shes genuine di sputes of material fa ct wi th respect to Harper’ s sex dis cri minati on clai m. Id. And becau se Harper contends that she can establi sh sex di scri mina tion under both the di rect and indi rect methods, w e consi der both methods in turn. A. Direct

Method
“Under the ‘di rect method,’ the plaint i ff may av oid

sum mary judgment by presentin g suffi ci ent evidenc e, ei the r di rect or ci rcums tantial, t ha t the employ er’s di scri minator y ani mus motiv ated an adv erse employment acti on.” Coleman v

. Donahoe, 667 F .3d 835, 845 (7th Ci r

. 2012). “Di re ct e v ide nce i s evidenc e that w ould prove di scri minator y intent wi thout relianc e on inference or presumptio n. ” Ma ko ws ki v

. SmithAmu ndsen LLC, 662 F .3d 818, 824 (7th Ci r

. 20 1 1 ). S uch evidenc e essenti ally “‘requires an admi ssi on by the d eci

si on-maker tha t [the deci si on-maker’s] acti ons w ere based upon the prohibi ted ani mu s. ’ ” Serednyj, 656 F .3d at 548 (quoti ng Rhodes v

. Ill. Dep’t of T ransp. , 359 F .3d 498, 504 (7th Ci r

. 2004)). S hould t he plainti ff lack di rect evidenc e, she may also p o int to ci rcums tantial evidenc e that allows a jury to inferNo. 13-2553 5

intentional di scri minati on by the deci si on-maker

. Makows ki , 662 F .3d at 824. Harper points to th e t e sti mony of tw o other County employ ees in an atte mpt to establi sh he r sex di scri minati on clai m und er t he di rect metho d. First, S andra Monar i, a Board member from 1998–2010 a nd the Chai rman from 2000–2004, testifi ed by declaration (made under penalt y of perj ury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746) that, in 2004, Ed Ket chu m, a male Board member

, di spense d wit h the tr adi tional approach to electi ng the Chai rman a nd secu red the posi tion for hi mself thro ugh a floor nominati on at a speci al meetin g d ur ing “ext remely sev ere w eather condi tions .” Monar i also testifi ed 3 that at some poin t duri ng Ket chu m’ s ch ai rmanshi p, he “and other male members” of the Board insi sted th a t T e resa Abudus ky

, a female Board member , resi gn be ca us e her long

w or k commu te (about one hour and fort y-fi v e minute s ) c a u sed her to mi ss commi tte e and Board mee tin gs. Monar i testifi ed that Doug Manock, a male Boar d member , w as not asked to resi gn ev en thoug h he a lso had a long commu te (about one hour and fi fteen minutes) t ha t caused hi m to be repeat edly absent fro m m e e tin gs

. In a d d i tion, Monar i testifi ed that, duri ng her tw elv e y ears as a Board member , she “observ ed the attitude and acti ons of the male board members” a nd concl ud e d t hat “a suffi ci ent numb er of the male members of the Board who had influ ence wi th the remain ing male members of the Board w ere bi ase d a gain st w omen.” Speci fi cally , Monar i

See Owens v. Hinsley, 63 5 F.3d 95 0, 95 5 (7 th C i r

. 2 0 1 1 ) (“ [A] decl arati on 3 under § 1746 i s equiva l ent to an affi dav i t fo r purpo ses of summa ry judgment.” ).6 No. 13-2553

stated that, based o n her observ ations of the conduc t of Ket chu m, Georg e Hall, Doug Manock, St ev e Conklin, and T err y Pi ff in relat i o n t o t he inci dents where in M onari lo st the chai rmanshi p and Abudus ky w as ask e d to resi gn, Monar i be l ie ved that those particu lar members “held a bi as again st

w omen in posi tio ns of authority .” Fin ally , Monar i remark ed that, in 2006, Ket chu m, Hall, and M a no ck “reg ularly v oic ed complaints about Vi ctor i a Harper’ s accountin g repo rt s and her conduc t of t he Offi ce of T reasurer .” Second, Mar y Hampton, the County’ s Ci rcui t Clerk since 1988, testifi ed by deposi tion that whenev er the County Clerk ’s salary w as set hi gher than her salary , she w ould hav e to make

a presentation to the Board in o r d e r to hav e her salary rais ed to the County Clerk ’ s l e v el. Hampton testifi ed that male offi cers w ere not required to si mil a rly justif y their pay rais es to the Board. How ev er

, she admi tte d that she had no “personal k no wl edge of whether the other elected offi ci als appeared before the Fin ance C o mm it t e e to explain why they needed a particu lar budget or salary increase

... . ” Hampto n also testifi ed that she felt that Hall talked down to her an d Harper and adopted a more aggr essive tone than when he w as speak ing to men. Fin ally , Hampton testifi ed that in August 2008, when she requested a rais e, she felt hosti li ty when she

w as in the same ro om as the members of the Fin ance Commi ttee, whi ch at that tim e inclu ded B uc he r , Hall, Ket chu m, Manock, and W i lli ams. None of thi s testim ony i s di rect evidenc e that the Board (or members there of ) deni ed Harper pay rais es becau se of her sex. Thus, the questi on i s whether thi s testim ony i s stro ng enough ci rcums tantial evidenc e to allow a jury to infer intentionalNo. 13-2553 7

di scri minati on by the Board—o r , at least, a cri tic al mass of the B o a rd’s members. W

e conclu de that thi s testim ony falls far short o f that standard.
Monar i ’s testim ony inclu des nothin g to suggest that the pow er strugg le resulti ng in her ouster from the Chai rmanshi p had anythin g to do wi th her sex. T o conclu de that i t di d w ould be raw specu lation. Sim i l arly , Monar i fai ls to link Ket chu m, Hall, and Manock’s complaints about Harper’s perfor manc e to her sex. Furthermor e, Monar i ’s testim ony that she beli e ves

4 that a cri tic al mass of male Board memb ers are bi ased again st

w omen i s conclu sory

. And Hampton’s testim ony t hat male offi ce-holders w e r e not required to justif y their pay rais es i s pure specu lation in li ght of her admi ssi on that she lacked personal knowledge. Fin ally , Hampton does no t o ffer any evidenc e linki ng her sex to her perceptions of hosti li ty from the Fin ance Commi tte e members duri ng the August 2008 meetin g to her sex. All that remain s i s Monar i ’s testim ony that Ket chu m and “other male members” of the Board asked Abudus ky to resi gn but d id not ask Manock to resi gn, along wi th Hampton’s deposi tion testim ony that Hall spoke more aggr essi v ely to her and Harper than to men

. In some ci rcums tances, “behavi or tow ard or comments di rected a t o ther employ ees in the prot ected gr oup” can be one kin d of ci rcums tantial e v ide nce indi cating di scri minati on. Goo d v

. Univ

. of C hi. Med. Ctr

. , 673 F .3d 670, 675 (7th Ci r

. 2012) (quoti ng Darchak v

. City o f Chi. Bd.

Indeed, th at testimo ny is c onsi stent with the Co unty’s contentio n tha t i t 4 di d no t gi v e Harper pay raises due to her po or wor k perf or man ce.8 No. 13-2553 of Educ. , 580 F .3d 622, 631 (7th Ci r

. 2009)). But Harper offers no evidenc e that these “other male members” (wh om she fai ls to i denti fy) w ere sti ll on the Board in 2010 or , i f so, v ote d to deny her p a y rais es. See id. at 676 (“The di rect method of proo f

... requires evidenc e leading directly to the conclu si on that an employ er w as i llegally motiv ated, w i thout relianc e on specu lation.”). Sim i larly

, ev en supp osing thi s evidenc e w ere enough to establi sh that Ket chu m and Hall held bi ases again st w omen, Harper has fai led to link those alleged bi ases to the deci si on to deny Harper pay rais es. Adams v

. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 324 F .3d 935, 939 (7th Ci r

. 2003) (“‘[B]i got ry , per se, is not acti onable. It i s acti onable only i f i t results in injury to a plainti ff; there mus t be a real link betw een the bi got ry and an adv erse employment acti on.’” (quoti ng Gor

ence v

. Eagle Food Ctrs., Inc. , 242 F .3d 759, 762 (7th Ci r

. 2001)))

. Thi s i s especi ally so giv en tha t nei ther Ket chu m nor Hall w ere on the Fin ance Comm ittee when the recommendati on w as made.
In other w or ds, the testim ony does not lead “ directly to the conclu si on that” the Fin ance Commi tte e’s recommendation and the B o a r d’s v ote to adopt that recommendati on w ere based on Harp e r ’s sex. Goo d, 673 F .3d at 676. And ev en i f the testim ony had some ci rcums tantial relev ance, the tot alit y of Harper’ s evidenc e i s si mply insu ffi ci ent to establi sh intenti on al sex di scri minati on. B. Indirect

Method
Under the indi rect method, also known a s t he McDonnell Douglas burden-s hi fti ng approach, Harper “mus t establi sh a prim a faci e case of sex di scri minati on by producing competent evidenc e that (1) she i s a w o man, (2) she suffered an adv erseNo. 13-2553 9 employment acti on, (3) she w as meetin g [the County’ s] legiti mate bus iness expectat i ons, and (4) a si mi larly si t ua t ed

man w as tr ea ted more fav or ably .” W eber v

. Univs

. Resear ch Ass’n, Inc. , 621 F .3d 589, 593 (7th Ci r . 2010). If sh e does so, the burden sh ift s to the County to art i culate a legiti mate, nondi scri minator y j usti fi cati on for denying H arper pay rai ses. Id. Once the County offers such a justifi cati on, t he burden shi fts back to Harper to show that the justifi cati on i s si mply a pret ext and t ha t her sex w as the real reason she di d not receiv e pay rais es. Id.
Here the parties focus on whet he r the County’ s justifi cations for denyi ng Harper pay ra i ses are pret ext ual. The 5 County offers sev en justifi cati ons fo r denyi ng Harper pay rais es. First, Conklin, Huggin s, and Hall testifi ed that they beli ev ed Harper should not receiv e p a y r ai ses becau se of an inci dent wherei n the Illi noi s St ate P olic e inv esti gate d Harpe r for requestin g a chec k from the County’ s General Fund for “supp li es” ev en though the chec k w as to reimb urse herself for

mo ne y she had donated to the County in the early 2000 s. Second, Buch er

, Conklin, and Hall testifi ed that they beli ev ed that Harper d id no t w or k full- tim e. Thi rd, Buch er , Conklin, Fletcher , Huggin s, and Hal l t e sti fi ed that they beli ev ed that Harper could hav e chosen better inv estments but refused to do

so or w or k wi th the Fin ance C o mm i tte e wi th respect to the County’ s inv estments. Four th, the County asserts that on tw o di fferent occasi ons Harper di d not prov i de repo rt s r equested

The deni al of a raise—e v en a purel y di screti onary one—can b e an adv erse 5 empl oyment actio n. Hunt v. City of Markham, Ill. , 21 9 F.3d 64 9, 65 4 (7 th Ci r. 20 00 ).10 No. 13-2553 by the Fin ance Commi tte e. Fifth, Harper su e d t he County in state court in an effort to ov ert urn a Board resolution di recting that the County Admini strat or be giv en “read only” acces s to the County T

reasurer ’s repo rt s. Sixth, Harpe r o ften di d not prov i de monthly repo rt s to the Board members unti l after the Fin ance Commi tte e met and shortly before the Board met. Sev enth, Harper di d not assi st wit h t he County’ s budget and often did not at tend Finan ce Commi tte e meetin gs. Harper has utter ly fa ile d to come forw ard wi th evidenc e tendi ng to prove that the County’ s numerous justifi cati ons for d e n y i n g h e r p a y r a ise s a r e p r e t e x t s ma sk ing se x di scri minati on

. Harper does contend that the testif yin g Board 6 members were mi stak e n a bo ut a numb er of the accu sati ons they lev el again st her

. But so long as these accu sat i ons w ere sincere, i t does not matter whether they w e r e wr ong. See

Harper argues tha t the Bo ard was not l egall y permi tted to deny her raises 6

o n t he b asis of her work perf or man ce. Harper rel i es upon an Il l i no i s Supre me Co urt deci sio n ref e r e nc i ng tha t “i f one i s l awfull y entitl ed to a publi c of fi ce the ri ght to salary atta ches to the of fi ce and tha t i t ma y b e
reco v ered i n ful l , i rrespe cti v e of any service render ed

... .” Kelly v. Chi. Park D i st

. , 98 N.E.2 d 73 8, 74 1 (Il l

. 19 51 ). But Kelly i s conce rned with whet he r a publi c offi ci al is a ctuall y b ei ng paid her full salary—the deci sio n do es n ot
conce rn an auth or i zed b od y’s i niti al deci sio n ab out wha t the publi c of fi ce’s salary shoul d b e. At the May meeti ng, the Bo ard set the salary fo r the fo uryear term commenci ng i n December 20 10

. Because the e l e c t i o ns fo r tha t term had not yet occ urred , neither Harper (nor any one el se) was “l awfull y entitl ed” to the of fi ce of Co unt y Treasurer fo r the December 20 10 term. Mo reo v er, apa rt fro m i mp osi ng mini mums not at i ssue here, the Il l i noi s Co unties Co de i mposes no sub stantive l i mitatio ns on the Bo ard’s power to set the salarie s of certai n Co unty of fi cers pri or to the comm e nc e me nt of their terms. See55 ILCS 5/ 4- 60 01

.No. 13-2553 11
Ballance v

. C i ty of Sprin gfield, 424 F .3d 614, 621 (7th Ci r

. 2005) (o bs e r v ing that a plainti ff cannot prev ai l i f the employ er “honestly beli ev ed in the nondi scri minator y reasons i t offered,

e v en i f the reasons are foolis h or tr i vial or ev en bas e l e ss ” (quoti ng Bell v

. E.P

.A. , 2 3 2 F

. 3 d 546, 550 (7th Ci r

. 2000)))

. 7 Mor eov er

, Harper concedes that many of the accu sati ons w ere tr ue, but contends that the problem s w e re not (enti rely ) her fault. For example, Harper arg ues that she di d no t wri te the chec k giving ris e to the state poli ce inv esti gation, she di d not hav e the techni cal abi li ty (or , at least, the tim e) to gener ate the requested repo rt s, she w as no t o bligated by statute to assi st wi th the budget or at t e nd F inance Commi tte e meetin gs, and the Fin ance Commi tte e’s inv estment view s wrongly v alued hi gh intere st rat es o v er li qui di ty . How ev er

, the fact that some of the cri tic i sms lev eled again st Harper may not be completely fai r doe s not establi sh that they ar e pret ext ual. Harper’ s only a tte mpt to show pret ext relat es to the laws ui t she fi led again st th e C ounty in resi stance to the Board’ s resolution di recting that the County Ad min i strat or be giv en

“ r e a d only” acces s to the County T reasurer ’s repo rt s. Speci fi cally

, becau se County Counsel repr esented the County , the state court appoi nted a speci al atto rne y to repr esent Harper , but who w as to be pai d by the County (pursu ant to

A s Ballance mak es cl ear, there i s no meri t to Harper’s contenti on tha t 7 “[ t]hi s cour t has not addressed the questio n of whether pro of [o f] the falsi ty of t he e mp l oyer ’s stated reasons fo r the empl oyment actio n i s all tha t i s requir ed to sur vi v e summa ry judgment.” Showi ng tha t the pro ffe red justi fi catio ns were mistaken i s not enough; to e stab l i sh pretext a pl aintif f must show tha t the empl oyer is l ying wh en it claims th at the justi fi catio ns were the real reasons fo r the adverse empl oyment actio n.12 No. 13-2553

Illi noi s law). How ev er , the B o a r d r esi sted the efforts of Harper’ s atto rney to collec t hi s fee for about one and one-half y ears. H arper contends that the Board’ s reluctance to pay her atto rney’ s fee interfer ed wi th hi s abi li ty to atte mpt to negot i ate
a nd reach a settlement, whi ch shows that the Board w as no t genuinely intere sted in ensuring that the County Admini strator obtained acces s to the County T r e a sure r’s repo rt s. But 8 Ha r p er’s atto rney w as appoi nted for the purpose of ai ding Harper in the laws ui t that she broughtin order to o ppose the Board’ s demands

. It i s not reasonable to infer from the Board’ s reluctance to p a y for the services render ed on behalf of Harper’ s opposi tion t o the Board’ s demands that the Board

w as not concerned wit h Har per’s compli ance wi th those demands

. Indeed, as the County has stated, Harper’ s deci si on to bri ng the sui t w as one o f t he County’ s justifi cati ons for denyi ng Harper pay rais es. Regar dless, Har p e r sti ll has completely fai led to come forw ard wit h evidenc e that the County’ s other six justi fi cati ons are pre tex tual. Harper also complains tha t t he Board tr eated Nelson, a male, better than her by giving hi m pay rais es. But the County explain s that the Board adopted the Fin ance Co mm it t ee’s recommendati on to giv e Nelson (the County Clerk ) pay rais es for the ter m commenc ing in December 2010 becau se of hi s particu larly excellent w or k perfor manc e. The County poin ts to evidenc e that Fin ance Commi tte e mem ber s beli ev ed that Nel son w ent bey ond hi s nor mal duties and w or ked ov ert i me (inclu ding on w eekends dur ing the electi on process). The County offers evidenc e that Nelson helped the County sav e

The p arties d o not tel l us the o utcome ofthe state l i tigati on. 8No. 13-2553 13

about $160,000 in health insu rance premi ums

. The County also offers evidenc e that Fin an c e C om m i tt ee members beli ev ed that Nelson had i mprov ed the equi pment, proce sses, and effi ci ency of the electi on process, had gui ded the County thro ugh a major infor mati on technology upgrade, and had spearheaded t he County’ s efforts to establi sh a geo gr aphi c information system. Harper offers no contrar y evidenc e. Thus, in addi tion to the complaints about her w or k perfor manc e, the County has offered u n d i s p u te d a n d l e gitimate reasons for giving pay rais es to Nelson but not to Harper

. And Harper offers no evidenc e that t hese reasons are pret ext s mas kin g sex dis cri minati on. Fin ally , Ha r p e r poin ts out that much of the County’ s evidenc e reg ardin g i ts justifi cati ons for denyi ng her pay rais es (w hil e giving them to Nelson) comes from the testim ony o f ind i vidu al Fin ance Commi tte e members and other Board members. Harper contends that thi s ev ide nc e i s i rr elev ant becau se i t does not necess arily reflect the view s of all ten Board members who v ote d to deny her pay rais es. Of course, any rule that only evidenc e reflectin g the view s of all of these ten Board members i s relev ant w ould not bode w ell for Harper’s theor y that only some of those Board members (a cr it ical mass ) w ere motiv ated by bi ases again st w omen. In fact, the testim o ny o f the indi vidu al Board members reg ardin g why they v ote d to deny Harper pay rais es is ce rt ainly relev ant to whether that d e cisi on w as the product of sex di scri minati on. Sim i larly , becau se the Board merely v ote d to adopt the Fin ance Commi ttee’s recommendati on to deny H arper pay rai ses, the Financ e C o mm ittee members’ reasons for maki ng that recommendation shed li ght on the Board’ s ulti mate deci si on to adopt that recommendati on.14 No. 13-2553

Mor eov er

, at the May 11, 2010, meetin g, the Board adopted three resolutions concerning the content and tim eliness of the T reasurer ’s repo rt s. Harper co nc edes that these resolutions demonstrate that the Board w as concer ne d a bo ut the content and tim eliness of her repo rt s when i t v ote d to deny her pay rais es. But, as explain ed abov e, Harper has fai led to show that the Board’ s concerns about the cont e nt a nd tim eliness of her

re p or ts we re m e re l y excuses cov ering sex di scri minati on. Thu s, ev en i f w e w ere t o c onfine our r eview of the Board’s justifi cations to i ts concerns about the conten t a nd tim eliness of Harper’ s repor ts, Harper cannot e stabli sh pretext

. III. Conclusi on Becaus e, as a matter of law , Ha rper cannot establi sh sex di scri minati on under ei ther the di rect or indirect method, w e AFF IRM the j udgment of the dis tr i ct court.