## 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

- 3358 E LI Z AB ET H H OPPE, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. L EW IS U NIVER S ITY, 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 Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:09- cv-03430

—E dmon d E . C hang, Judge .
A RG UE D M AY 22, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 31, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d W ILLIAM S an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cuit Judge

. El i zabe th H oppe i s a te nured p rofessor i n the Ph il osop hy D ep artm en t at L ew is U niversit y. She l ostthe pri vi l ege o fte achi ng av i ati on e thi cs afterthe new chai r of the Avia ti on Depart m ent, W i l l i am Brog an, deem ed herunquali fi ed f orthe posi ti on be cause she had no f or m altr ai ni ng in a vi ati on, she had never wor k ed i n the i ndus try, a nd s he ha d no t o bt aine d a ny2 N o. 11

- 3358 deg r ee s o r c er ti fi ca ti o ns r el ev an t to the fi el d. Dur i ng the tw o ye ar s be f or e herr em ova lfro m the avi ati on ethi cs c o ur se, Hoppe fi l ed a se r i es o fc ha r g es wi ththe Equa lEm pl o y m en t Oppo r tu ni tyCo m m i ss i o n, r eque st i ng a n a c c o m m o d a t io n fo r h e r c lin ic a lly d ia g n o s e d “ a dju st m en t d iso rd er ” a n d ac c u sin g t h e u n ive rs ity of d isc rim ina ti o n a nd r et al i at i o n. H oppe su ed Lew i s Un i ver si ty f ordi scr i m i nati on and ret al i ati on under the A m er i cans with Dis ab ili ti es A ct, Ti tl e VI Io fthe Civi l Rights Act, and 42 U
. S. C. § 1 981. A t the cl ose o fdi sco ver y, the dist ri c t courtawarded sum m ar y jud gm en t in f avo r ofthe unive rs i ty on a l lo f H o ppe’ s cl ai m s. Hoppe a ppea l s, fir sta r g ui ngtha t th e d istri ct court erred by fi nd ing th at sh e cou ld not p erf or m heres senti al j ob functi ons and that Lewis U ni ver si ty provi ded her a reas onabl e a ccom m odati on. W e a gr ee th atthe r e was no e vi den ce o fHoppe ’ s j o b func ti o ns orheri nabi l i ty to perf or m the m , b ut the und i sputed e v i de nc e s ho ws thatthe u ni v e r s i t y o ffe r e d Ho pp e thr e e di ffe r e nta c c o mm o da t i ons , wh i c h s he r ej e c t e d, an d n o ra t i o n a l t rie r of fa c t c ou ld find th at th e u n iver si ty’ s e ff or ts w er e unre aso nabl e. H oppe al so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourto verl oo ked m ate ri alf act disputes r e l e v a ntt o h e r r eta l i a t i o n c l a i ms. We di s a g r e e . Ho pp e has no ev i dence ofa causall i nk be tw een her prot ecte d acti vi ty and B ro ga n ’ s deci si on, so she has f ai l ed to m ake a pr i m a f ac i e sh o wi ngo fr etaliat i o n. S um m ar y j udg m en t i n the uni ve r si ty ’ s f av o r, the r efo r e, was appr o pr i at e an d s o w e a ffi r m.N o. 11

- 3358 3 I . B AC KGR OUND A s th is i s a n appeal fro m an a w ar d ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent, w e m u st c onst rue the facts i n the l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o Eli zabe th H oppe, the non- m ova nt be l ow . See M ontgom ery v. A m er ican Airl ine s, Inc. , 62 6 F .3d 38 2, 38 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. W e do so i n the narr ati ve that f ol l ows. I n 199 9, Lew i s Un i ver si ty hi re d Eli zabe th H oppe as an as si sta nt pro fess ori n the Phil oso phy Dep ar tm ent, si tu at ed w ithi n the Co l l eg e o fArt s an d S ci en ce s. Abo ut si x yea rs l ate r, i n 200 5, H op p e re c eive d a pro m oti on t o as so ci at e pr ofessor wi tht enur e. Hoppe s er ve d a s th e chai r ofthe Phil oso phy Dep ar tm ent b etween A ugust 2 004 and A ugust 2 006. H oppe’s r i se up the ra nks r esul ted i n partfro m her sk i l l s as a n e xc el l en t t ea ch ero fphi l o so phy

. Buts he al so bra nched out t o tea ch co urse s in other f acul ti es, id en tify in g a via tio n et h ics as h er su b

- s p ec ializ at ion . In th e f al lo f2 00 3, Hoppe b eg ant ea ch i ngpa r t- ti m e i n the Avi ati on De par tmentwhi l e co nc ur r en tly mai nt aini ng a ful l

- ti m e l o ad i n the Ph i l o soph y D epar tment
. At the ti m e, Hoppe had no f o r m alt r aini ngi n a vi at i o n, no re l evantwork experi ence, and no degre es orcer ti fi cati ons ass oc iated w i th the i nd ustr y. H oppe taughtat l eas t o ne av i ati on e thi cs c ours e e ach ac adem i c y ear u n til Fe b ru a r y 2 00 9, w h en W illiam B ro ga n, th e n ew ly appoint ed chai r ofthe A viat i on Depart m ent, st ri pp ed her oftho se du ti es. Bro gan’ s decis ion and the eve nts pr ec edingi t ar e th e f o ca lpo i nto fthi s l i ti g at i o n. H op p e t oo k a sa b b at i c a l i n A u gu st 20 06 , ba se d in part on the r eco m m endati on o fthe dean ofthe Col l ege4 N o. 11

- 3358 of A rt s a n d Sc ien c es , D r. A n g e la D u ra n te . Th e d ea n to ld H op pe t o “ s t e p a wa y fr o m the Uni v e r s i t y e nv i r o nm ent” an d r eque st ed th ats he v aca te he r o ffi ce b ec au se the Ed ucati on Depart m ent, wh i ch had l oaned out the space, ne ed ed i t b a ck for accred itation. A few m ont hs l ater, i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 7, H o p p e f i l e d a n a s s o c i a t i o n a ld i s c r i mi nati on char ge w ith the Eq ual Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssio n on be hal fo fa H i spani c co l l eague wh om she b el i eve d had suffer ed ra ci al d i scr i m i nati on. A fter re turni ng fro m sabbati cal, H oppe re cei ved an o ffi ce as sig n m en t inth e P h ilos op h y D ep ar tm en t’s ac ad em ic bui l ding. But H oppe re fused to use the assi gned space. In st ea d , sh e re m ov ed h er n am e fro m t h e d oo r an d m od ifi ed herco u rs e syll abito al er t herstud ents that offi ce hours and a pp o i nt men t s wo ul d o c c ure l s e w here

. H oppe has no t a ctual l y use d an offi ce at the uni ver si ty si nce the spr i ng se m est ero f20 07. On Jul y 2 7, 20 07, H oppe fi l ed a s eco nd charge o fdi scr i m i na ti o n wi ththe EEOC, thi s ti m e al l eg i ngretali at i o n. H op p e claim ed that she h ad bee n “ s u bj ecte d to w orse ne d ter m s an d c o ndi ti o ns o fe m pl o y m en t, i nc l udi ng unw ar ra nted dis ci plinaryact i on , fai l ure to i nfo rm her of a se cur i ty co nc ern when o th er f ac ul ty m embe r s w ere i nf o r m ed, a nd a l te r ed j ob r es po ns ibi l i ti es . ” As o ne e xam ple , H op p e ci ted the f act that the dean no l onge r re cogn ized heras the “go to ” per son f orpart i ci pati on i n univ er si ty com m i tte es a n d aff ai rs . Bef or e fi l i ng her fi rs t char ge ofdi scr i m i nati on, H oppe had ser ved on at lea st on e fa c u lty se ar c h co m m i t t e e e ve ry ye ar , bu t in th e suc ce edingf o ury ea r s, s he s er ve d o n o nl y o ne su ch com m ittee. Facu lty sea r ch com m ittee m em bers w er e no t pai d fo r thei r ser vi ce.N o. 11

- 3358 5 H oppe cl ai m ed to have al so experi enced other re tal i at i o n , in c lu d in g: (1) n otbe in g s ele c te d to p ar tic ip at e in the fi nalprogr am r evi ew o fthe Phil oso phy Dep ar tm ent, ( 2) notr ecei vi ng a parti cul arr ese ar ch gr ant forwh i ch she had appl i ed, ( 3) being r epor ted to the dean f or m i ssing m eet i ngs a nd r equi re d to supp l y a docto r’ s no te, ( 4) being o ut o fco m m unica tio n w i th Dean Durante, an d ( 5) b eingi den ti fi ed as one o fa do ze n pe o pl e who “mi g htha ve a pr o bl em o r i ss ue o r b e a ng r y ” an d who m i ght b e r esp on sibl e fortwo har ass i ng l ett er s that the Dean Durante r ecei ved and re port ed to pol i ce. I n A ugust 2 007, D r. Kathle en Zachar y di agno sed H o ppe wi th “ adj us tmentdi so r derwi tha nxi ety a nd depresse d m oo ds. ” B ec ause ofherdi sor der, H oppe at ti m es avo i ded the i nter net a nd enl i ste d the as sist ance o fhe r f ri en ds, he r the r api st, o r he r a tt o r ne y t o r ea d a nd s ummar i z e e l e c t r o ni c mes s a g e s . Ho pp e o nc e we nt a fullm onth without per sonal l y c hecking hervo i ce m ai lo r o pen i nghe r po st almai l

. Hoppe ’ s adj us tment d iso rd er w as alleg ed ly ex ac e r b at ed by ce rt ain ind ivi du al s at Lew i s U ni ver si ty. One such per son w as Pro fessorGeor ge M i l l er, the chai r of the Phi l oso phy Dep ar tm en t. H op p e h a d an offic e in th e s am e a c ad em ic bui l ding as Pro fess orM i l l er

— th ey w ere t he de p artm en t’s only p erm an en t faculty m em bers

—but be i ng nea r or i nt eractin g w ith him all eged ly he ighten ed H op p e’s anxi ety
. On A ugust 2 7, 20 08, H oppe’s docto r sent a let terto Lew i s U ni ver si ty re questi ng that H oppe’s offi ce be r el ocate d to acco m m odate her diso rder

. The l ett erdi d not6 N o. 11

- 3358 i denti fy a cam pu s l oca tio n that would be sui tabl e for H oppe, so Lew i s s ent a l ett erbac k a sking the doctor to cl ar i fy the a cc o m m o dat i o n r eq uesta nd de l i ne at e th e f a c t o r s l i k e l y t o a g g r a v a t e Ho pp e ’ s c o nd i t i o n. Ho pp e b r o u g h t th e u n i v e r s i t y ’ s l e t t e r t o h e r d o c t o r a nd , o n S epte m be r 3 0, 2 00 8, Hoppe ’ s do ct o r f o r war ded th e univers i tya s ec o nd a cc o m m o dat i o n r eque st
. The s ec o nd l et te r a g ain f ai l ed to s pec i fy a suitab le l o ca ti o n o r the p articu lar stres s ors tha t H op p e nee d ed to avoid. N everthel ess , the unive rs i ty offer ed H oppe thr ee o ffi ce opti ons, ea ch l oca ted i n the sam e bui l ding as her tem pora ryas si gnm ent. H oppe rej ecte d al lthr ee. I n Octobe r 2008 , H oppe chapero ned students fro m th e av i at i o n de par tmento n a fi el d t r i p t o F ede r alExp ress. B rogan later recei ve d c o m pl ai nt s ab o ut H op p e’s be h av ior d u ri n g t h e t rip . H op p e h ad ex p er ienced ve rt i go and she too k pr escr i pti on m edi cati on t o tr eathersy m ptom s. Duri ng a dinnerl ate r that eve ni ng, H oppe drank tw o gla ss es ofwine, ev en tho ugh her doctorhad re com m ended that s he av oi d al coholafter takin g her m edi cati on, and behave d i n a m anner that st ru c k t h e F ed E x rep re se n ta tiv es as u n p ro fes sio n al. A bout one m onth l ate r, Bro gan m et w i th H oppe to disc uss the co m pla i nts he r ecei ved and to not i fy herthat sh e w ou ld n o lon ge r te ac h av iat ion e t h ics . B ro ga n to ld H oppe that s h e w as not quali fi ed to te ach the co urse . H e said n oth ing abou t t h e F e d E x trip, how ever. Rath er, Br og a n mai nt a i ne d tha th i s de c i s i o n ha d n o thingt o do wi thHoppe ’ s p ro fes si o na l i sm an d s he c o ul d c o nt i nue to acco m pany the departm ent o n tr i ps i n the future.N o. 11

- 3358 7 Brog an and H oppe m et a s eco nd t im e on Fe bruar y 2 6, 20 09 , sh or tly aft er H op p e’s at to rn ey n ot ified L ew is U n iver si ty that it h ad f ai l ed to acc om m odate H oppe’s di sab i l i t y . Du r i ngthi s s e c o nd me e t i ng, Br o g a n t o l d Ho pp e th ats he ha d b ee n pe r m an en tly b ar r ed fr o m t eachi ng cour ses offer ed by the A vi ati on Dep ar tm ent. H e c i ted he r l ac ko fqua l i fi ca ti o ns a nd he r “ be ha vi o r ” dur i ngthe F e d E x t r i p a s r e a s o n s f o r h i s d e c i s i o n . Ab o u tt wo m onths l ate r, H op p e fi l ed a thi rd char ge ofdi scr i m i nati onwi th the EE OC, a l l e g i ngdi s ab i l i t y di s c r i mi na t i on an d r et al i at i o n. O n Jan ua ry 19, 2010 , Le w is U niversity received a third l ett erfro m H oppe’s docto r re questi ng an ac c om m odati on. T he let te r a sk ed th atHoppe b e m o ve d t o a di ffer en t “l oca ti on. ” Despit e the unive rs i ty’ s express requests , H oppe’s docto r aga i n did noti dent ify a sui tabl e o ffi ce orwh o orwh at w as contributi ng to H oppe’s di ffi cul ti es. Thr ee da y s l at er, Le wi s o ffer ed Hoppe a n o ffi ce i n a differen t bui l ding. H oppe acce pted the new offi ce spa ce , b utne ve r move d i n. H op p e sued Lew i s Un i ver si ty f ordi scr i m i nati on, r eta l i at i o n, a nd f ai l ur e to a cc o m m od ate a di sabi l i ty
. S he ass er ted si x cl ai m s: ( 1) as soc i ati onaldi scr i m inati on i n v i o l a t i o n o fT i t l e V I Io fthe Ci v i lR i g ht s Ac t, 4 2 U. S
. C. § 2 000e ets eq . ; ( 2) r etaliati on under Ti tl e VI I ; ( 3) as soc i atio n aldi scr i m i nati on in vi ol ati on o f42 U
. S. C. § 1 981; ( 4) r et al i at i o n un ders ec ti o n 1981; ( 5) di sc r i m i na ti o n a nd f ai l ur e to a cc o m m o date in v i o l at i o n o fthe Am er i ca ns w i th Di sabi l i ti es A ct, 42 U
. S.C. § 1 2101 ets eq . ; a nd ( 6) r eta l i ati on under the A DA
. A t the cl ose o fdi sco ver y, the dist ri ct cour t gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in favor8 N o. 11

- 3358 ofthe unive rs i ty on a l lsi x cl ai m s. T h e c ou rthel d that H oppe coul d not per f or m heres senti alj ob functi ons, that th e u n ive rs ity m a d e a goo d fait h effo rtto rea so n ab ly acc om m od ate h er, a n d th at H op p e fai led to iden tify evi dence o f a casualco nnecti on be tw een he r prot ecte d acti vi ty and her re m ova lfro m the avi ati on e thi cs c ours e. H oppe’s appealse eks to rev i ve al lbut her ass oci ati onal disc ri m i nati on cl ai m s.

II. A N A L Y S IS W e r e v i e w a n a wa r d o fs ummar y j ud g men t de n ovo . O ’Le ary v. Accre ti ve Health, Inc. , 65 7 F
. 3d 625, 63 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p ro p ria te o n l y if “ther e ar e no genui ne i ssues of m ate ri al f act an d j ud gm en t as a matt ero fl aw i s war r an te d f o r the moving party
. ” G ross v. P P G Indu s., Inc. , 63 6 F
. 3d 884, 88 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. Ourr ev i ew c o ns i st s o f“ ex ami n[ i ng ] the re cor d i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o [ the par ty] , ag ai nst w h om su m m ar y jud gm en t w as gra n te d , res olv in g a ll evid en tiary c onfli cts in [her] f avor an d accord ing [her] the b enefi t o fal lr eas onabl e infe re nces that m ay be draw n fro m the re cor d.” O ’Lea ry, 657 F. 3d at 63 0 (c itatio n s o m i tte d). W e wil laffi rm o nl y i f“no r eas onable tr i ero ff ac t” c o ul d fi nd i n favor o fthe no n- m o ving p ar ty
. Id.

A . H op p e’s A D A D iscrim ina ti on Claim To es tabl i sh di sabi l i ty disc ri m i nati on, a pla i nti ffm ust pr o ve tha t ( 1) s he i s di sabl ed wi th i n th e m ea ni ngo ftheN o. 11

- 3358 9 A DA , ( 2) she i s qual i fi ed to per f or m the ess enti alfunctio n s o fthe j ob, ei therwith o r w i thout a r eas onabl e a ccom m o da t i o n, a nd ( 3 ) s he s uffe r e d fr o m a n a dv e r se e m p loy m en t a c tio n be c au se of h er d isa b ility

. Ne s e v. Jul i an N or di c Cons t
. Co. , 405 F.3d 638 , 641 (7th C ir. 2005). “I fan AD A pl ai nti ffes tabl i shes a pri m a f aci e ca se, the b urden shi fts to the e m plo yerto o ffer a l egi ti m ate n on d isc rim in at or y re as on for th e em p loy m en t d ec isio n . I f th e e mpl o y e r s u c c e e d s , th e n th e b u r d e nr e v e r t s t o the pla i nti ffto sho w thatther e i s a ge nuine dis p u te o f m ate ria lf act that the pr offer ed re aso n f orthe em plo ym ent a cti on i s pre textual

. ” Id. (citation om itted ). The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und n o g enui ne di spu te r eg ar di ng H op pe’s i nabi l i ty to perf or m the ess enti alfuncti ons of h e r j o b a n d th e u n i v e r s i t y ’ s r e a s o n ab l e e ff o r t t o a c c o mm od ate h er disab il ity. H op p e a r g ue s tha t the record do es no t su ppo r t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ngtha t sh e coul d not per f or m heres senti alj ob functi ons. S he al so conte nd s that byfi nd i ng tha t Lewis U ni ver si ty provi ded her a r eas onabl e a ccom m odati on, the dist ri ct c ou rt r eso lve d a m at er ial fa c t d isp u te an d d id n otvie w th e e vidence i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o her. W e a gr ee w i th he r o n the fi r s tp o i nt, b utn o to n the s e c o nd

. T h e A D A req u ire s a n em p l o y e r t o m ak e re as on ab le ac co m m o dat i o ns t o a l l o w a “ qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dualwi tha disabi l i ty” to per f or m t h e e sse nti alfuncti ons ofherj ob. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 2112 ( b) ( 5)(A )
. Fe deralr egul ati ons i nstr uct cour ts to consi der the f ol l owing cate gor i es of evi dence w hen deci ding an em plo yee ’ s e sse nti alj ob functi ons: ( i ) The e m pl o y er ’ s j udg m en t as to whi chfunc ti o ns ar e e ss en tia l;10 N o. 11

- 3358

I ndee d, this f ac twas undi s put ed un t i l Hoppe’ s depo s i t i on 1 t es t i m ony s uppos edl y s ur pri s ed th e uni ver s i t y with de t ai l s of (co n tin u ed ...) ( i i ) Wr i t t e n j o b de s c r i pt i o ns p r e par e d b e f o r e a dve rt isin g or int er vie w in g a p p lica n ts for th e job; ( i i i ) T h e a mo u n to ft i me s p e n t o n th e j o b p e r f o r min g t h e fu n c tio n ; ( i v ) T h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f n o t r e q u i r i n g th e i n c u mb en t t o p er for m th e fu n c tio n ; ( v) The te rm s o fa col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent; (vi) T h e w or k e x p e r ien c e o f p as t in c u m b en ts in th e j ob; and /or ( vi i ) T he cur re nt work experi ence ofi ncum bents i n si m i l arj obs

. 29 C
. F.R. § 1630
. 2(n)(3). Th e r e c o r d c o nt a i ns n o e v i de nc e o fHo pp e ’ s e s s e nt i al j ob fu n c tio n s. T h e d i st ric t c ou rt, th er efo re , ha d n o e videnti ar y b asi s forco ncl ud i ng tha t “ [ c] om m unica ti on wi th s t ud e nt s , c o mm i t t e e s , fel l o w pr o fe s s o r s , a nd a dm inistrators are a nec essity for a teac hin g pos iti on, w he re the obj ect ofthe profess i on i s t o com m unic ate and pass o n k no wl edg e. ” But ev en i f we ac ce pt th e co urt’s co ncl usi on, H op p e h as i denti fi ed re cor d evi dence to su ppo r t he r i ns i st en ce tha t sh e ca n in f ac t pe rform th e iden tified fun ctions
. Fi rst an d f orem o s t, t he un iversity’ s answ erto H oppe’s co m pla i nt adm i ts that H oppe can perf or m heres senti alj ob functi ons. That a dm i ssi on like ly sh ou ld h av e e n d ed th e c ou rt ’s i n q u i ry . A d d i- 1N o. 11

- 3358 11

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 h e r d i sa b i l i t y . T h e st i c k i n g p o i n tfo r th e u n i v e r si t y is H o p p e ’s adm i s s i on thathe r adj us t m en tdi s or d er p reve nt ed h erfro m c he c ki ng h ervoi c em ai l an d s en di ng po s t al m ai l f or a m onth o n on e p rior occa sion an d tha t in the p ast she ch eck ed h er em ail o n c e p e r w e e k . B u tth i s e v i d e n c e d o e s n o tp r o v e th a tH o p p e ’s di s or der pr eve nt s he r f rom e verdoi ng the s e thi ngs , or doi ng the m wi tho uta r e a s on a bl e a c c omm od a t i on . I n f a c t, Hop pe testified tha t she o ften en listed th e a ssistance o f oth ers to check and re lay her m es sages w hen her dis order prevented he r f ro m pe rs ona l l y doi ng s o. ti o na l l y, the r e i s no di spu te tha t H o ppe ha s be ena nd re mai ns e mpl o y e d wi th Le wi s Uni v e r s i t y . Ho pp e ’ s past and prese nt em plo ym ent a re pro bati ve ofherabi l i ti es as w ell. Se eM i l l e rv. Il l i nois D ep’t of Tran s p. , 64 3 F
. 3d 190, 197 ( 7th C ir. 2011 ) (find ing p lai nt iff cou ld p e r form es senti alj o b func ti o n b ec au se , a m o ngo th erthi ng s, pl ainti ff“ was a sk i ngo nl y tha t he b e al l o wed t o w ork a s he ha d w orked suc cess full y for seve ral y e a rs.”)
. Th e un iversi ty a ddu c e d n o thingt o c o nt r a di c tHo pp e ’ s c l a i m that she c an per f or m heres senti alj ob functi ons, and eve n i fi th a d d o ne so that e v i de nc e wo ul d h a v e c r e a t e d a m ate ri alf act dispute , so the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld not ha ve g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t o n tha t ba si s. Butthe dist ri ct c ou rt w as cor re ct that no r ati onaltr i ero ff act c o ul d fi n d th a tL e wi s U n i v e r s i t y f a i l e d t o o ffe r H o pp e a r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n. An e m p l o y e r s a t i s fi e s i t s d u t y t o r e a s o n ab l y a c c o mm o dat e ane m pl o y ee wi tha di sabi l i tywhenthe em plo yerdoes wh at i s nec ess ar y t o al l ow the em plo yee12 N o. 11

- 3358 to w or k in re aso nabl e co m f or t. VandeZandev. St at eof Wi s c. D ep’t of

Adm i n. , 44 F. 3d 538, 546 (7th Cir. 1995). A n em plo yerneed o nl y pr ovi de a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a “r eas onabl e a ccom m odati on, notthe acco m m odati on [ the e m plo yee ] would prefer . ” Re hl i n g v. Ci ty of Chi. , 20 7 F
. 3d 10 09 , 1 01 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 000). “ To de te r m i ne the a pp ro pri ate r eas onabl e a ccom m odati on i t m ay be n ec es sa ry for th e [e m p loy er ] to init iat e a n info rm al, i nter acti ve proce ss. ” Id. ( qu oting 29 C
. F.R. § 1630
. 2(o)( 3)). A n em plo yercan tak e no so l ace i n i ts f ai l u re to enga ge i n thi s pro cess i n go od f ai th if w hat r esul ts i s a n unreas on ab le or ina p p ro p ria te ac c om m od at ion offe r. Se e i d. at 1016
. A nd an em p loy ee w ho f ai l s t o up hol d her end ofthe bar gain

— fo r e xa m pl e, b y no t “c l ar i fy i ng the e xtent o fherm edi calr est ri cti ons”

— cannot i m pose l i abi l i ty on the em p loy erf ori ts f ai l ure to provid e a re as on ab l e a c c om m od at ion
. St e f f e s v. St epan Co. , 1 4 4 F .3 d 10 70 , 107 3 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). Th e u n d isp u te d ev ide nc e i n the r e c or d sh o ws tha tHo pp e di d n o tp r o v i de the unive rs i ty w i th the i nfo rm ati on i t needed an d r equ e s t e d a nd the un i v e r s i t y t o o k r e a s o nab l e st e ps even w ithou t this inform ation to acc om m o d a te H op p e’s disabi l i ty. The uni ver si ty ther ef or e i s e nt itle d to j ud gme n ta s a ma t t e r o fl a w. I n Steffes , f aced with a s i m i l arf act pattern, we held that an em plo yeri s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero f l aw i fa n e mpl o y e e r e fus e s t o c o o pe r a t e i n g o o d f ai th d u rin g t h e in te ra c tiv e p ro c es s. Id. at 1073
. The di sabl ed em plo yee in that ca se, J oan St effes, suffer ed fro m c h ro n ic o b st ru c tiv e p u lm on ar y d ise a s e , w h ich m ad e it dangero us f orherto be exposed to certai n chem i cal s.N o. 11

- 3358 13 St effes w or ked i n the w ar ehouse o fa chem i calco m pany, S t e p a n . T h e e mpl o y e r h a d o ffe r e d S t e ffe s a j o b i n t he w areh ou se on th e con d iti on th at he r d o c tor clari fy the e xtent o fherwork re str i cti ons and cer ti fy that S teffes coul d safel y workar ound cert ai n, i denti fi ed chem icals

. Steffes’s d octor inform ed Step an that Steffes cou ld w ork i n “the sto re r oo m wh er e t h e acco m panyi ng l i st of chem i cal [ s] ar e in conta i ners” but “[ she] has had res pir atory probl em s i f she i s exposed to chem i cal spi lls in w hi ch vapor i zati on occurs . ” Id. a t 10 72
. S te panf o und the l ett erd efic i ent b ecause i t di d not r efl ect the a ctual condi ti ons i n the w ar ehouse , and “Ste ffes did not att em pt to ge t m or e co m prehensi ve ass urances fro m her physi ci an in res ponse t o the c om pany’s co ncer ns. ” Id. W e a ffirm ed su m m ar y jud gm en t b ec au se Ste p an co u ld n otbe h eld liab le f o r f a ilin g t o p ro vid e a rea so n ab le acco m m od a t i o n o n a c c o un t o f S t e f f es causi ng a bre akdown i n the i nter acti ve proce ss. Id. at 1072

- 73. H oppe ar gues that sum m ar y j u dgm ent s houl d not ha ve b een g ran ted i n thi s ca se b ec au se , l i k e i n EE O C v. S e a rs , R o e b u c k& C o. , 4 17 F. 3d 78 9, 7 93 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , the em plo yercause d the inter activ e proce ss to bre ak d ow n an d , as a res u lt, h er d isa b ility w as n otrea so n ab ly acco m m odated. But Sea rs i s a very di ffer en t ca se . The em plo yerther e knew o fthe em plo yee ’ s ner ve dam age i n herr i ght l eg and her doctor ’ s r eco m m endati on that she be gi ven a parking spot cl ose r to the bui l d in g, ac c ess to the a pp ar elst ock ro om to ea t lunch , and acce ss to th e sh o e st o ck r o o m a s a sh o r tc utt o he r wor k st at i o n. E ve n so , th e e m p loy er d id n otm a ke its fac ility “re ad ily a c c e s s ib l e t o a nd u s e ab l e b y ” the e mpl o y e e i n ac-14 N o. 11

- 3358

cor dance w i th herdocto r’ s r eco m m endati on, but i nstea d i t “ei ther re sci nd ed” the acco m m odati ons it had previ ousl y m ad e or“r epri m and[ed] [ the e m plo yee ] w hen she tr i ed to use them

. ” Id. at 803. That di d not happ en her e. T he l etter from H op p e’s doc tor, li ke th e pla in tiff’ s l e t t e r i n S t e

ffes , l a c k e d s pe c i fi c de t a i l s ab o utwh a ts t e ps w ere ne cess ary to reason ably acc om m od ate H o p p e’s d isabil ity. A lt h o u g h H o p p e a lle g e d ly to ld A y e rs that she di d not want an o ffi ce in t h e sam e bui l ding as Pro fess orM i l l er , t h ere i s no ev i dence thatA yer s o r th e uni ve r si ty ’ s human r es o ur ce s depa r tment

— th e re c ip ien t of H op p e’s pas t d octor’s letters

— k n e w th a tth e r e c o mm en d at ion h ad co m e fro m H op p e’s d oc to r . A n d t h er e is no di spute thatthe unive rs i ty sent H oppe’s docto r at l ea stt wo l et te r s r eque st i ngs pec i fi c informati o n t o no av ai l

. Unl i k e i n Sea rs , H op pe’s docto r neverpro vi ded ana dequa te r es po ns e to the uni ve r si ty ’ s r equest, but the uni ver si ty sti l lo ffer ed H oppe thr ee differ ent o ffi ce loc at ion s. C on se q u en tl y, n o ra tio n al t rie r of fa c t c ou ld fi nd thatthe u n i ver si ty f ai l ed to part i ci pate in go od f ai th i n the A DA

- re qu ire d i nter acti ve proce ss orthati t f ai l ed t o o ffe r H o p p e a r e a s o n ab l e a c c o mm o d a t i o n . S u mm ary j ud gm en t w as th erefore app rop riate on H op p e’s AD A c l a i m.

B . H o p p e ’ s Re t a l i a t i o n C l a i ms H op p e’s rem aining claim s relate to the un iversity’ s al l ege dlyr eta l i ato ryco nd uct. The di str i c t co urt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe unive rs i ty on theseN o. 11

- 3358 15 cl ai m s be cause, am ong other thi ngs, the re cor d l acke d evid en ce tend ing to sh ow a cau sal link betw een H o p p e’s prot ecte d acti vi ty an d her re m ova lfro m the avi ati on ethi cs c ours e. H oppe ar gues that the c ou rt o ver l oo ked the t em pora lpro xi m i ty between t h e tw o, i gnor ed her evi dence thatbo th Bro gan a n d A yer s knew abo ut her pr ot ec ted act i vi ty, and f ai l ed to acc ept herev i dence th at th e un iversity’ s art ic ulated j us tifications w ere p re te x tu al. Tit l e VI If orbi ds re tal i ati on a ga i nst a nyone w ho “ ‘ has o ppo se d a ny pr ac ti ce made anunl awfule m pl o y m en t pract i ce b y [ Tit l e VI I ] , o r bec au se h e has m ade a charg e, tes ti fi ed , a ssi ste d, orpart i ci pated i n any m anner i n an in ve st iga tio n, pr oc ee d i n g , or h ea rin g u n d er [T itle V II]. ’ ” Lou de r m i l k v. Be s tPal l e tCo. , 636 F.3d 312 , 314 (7th C ir. 20 11 ) ( quo ting42 U
. S
. C. § 2 00 0e

- 3( a) )
. S ec ti o n 1 98 1 an d the A D A als o p ro h ibitret alia tio n . Se eCB O CS We s t, Inc . v. H um ph ries , 553 U
. S. 442, 457 ( 2008 ) (Section 1981 ); Ke rs t i n g v. Wal

-M ar t S t ores , Inc. , 25 0 F
. 3d 1109 , 11 17 ( 7th C ir. 2001) (A D A ). A pl ai nti ffm ay est abl i sh r eta l i ati on under the di re ct or ind ire c t m et h od of p ro of. See Web er v. U niv ersities R es earch Ass’n, Inc. , 6 2 1 F. 3 d 5 8 9 , 59 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. Ho pp e n eit h er alleg ed n or p ro vid e d ev id en c e o f an y s im ilar ly si tuated e m p l oye es not subj ecte d to the s am e a dvers e acti on, so s h e m ay onl y pr oce ed und erthe dir ect m etho d of p ro of. Silve rm an v. B d. of E duc. of City of C hi. , 63 7 F. 3d 7 29 , 740 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. “To avo i d sum m ar y j ud gmen ton a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m un de r the di r e c tme tho d, [ th e pl aint i ff ] mustpr o duce e vi den ce fr o m whi cha16 N o. 11

- 3358 j u ry co uld co ncl ud e: ( 1) thatshe engag ed i n a s tatut or ily p ro te c te d ac tiv ity ; (2) th at sh e s u ffer ed a m a t e ria lly advers e a cti on byherem plo yer ; and ( 3) ther e was a causall i nk be tw een the two. ” Bern uzziv. Bd. of Educ
. of C ity of Chi. , 64 7 F
. 3d 652, 66 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( ci tat i on an i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). T h e r e is n o d isp u te th at H op p e e n ga ge d in s ta tu to rily prot ecte d acti vi ty by fili ng herchar ges o fdi scr i m i nati on and r equesting a re aso nabl e acco m m odati on for h er di s ab i l i t y . Wi th th e e x c e p t i o n o fh e r r e mo v a lfr o m t he avi ati on e thi cs c ours e, the re tal i ato ryco nd uct that H o ppe co m pl ains abo uto bj ec ti ve l y do es not r i se t o the l e v e lo fb e i ngma t e r i a l l y a dv e r s e. See B urlin gto n N o rthern and Sa nta Fe R y. C o. v. White, 5 4 8 U. S
. 5 3 , 6 7( 2 0 0 6 )
. Ho pp e o f fe r s n o a utho r i t y f o r c l a s s i fy i ngthe c o mpl a i ne dabout conduct as anythin g o therthan m er e s nubs or sl i g ht s. And the r e i s no ev iden ce t o s ug g es t th atthe advers e a c tio ns i n questi on pro du ced orwere l i kel y t o produce an i nj ury orhar m , eco nom i c o r othe rwis e. H oppe a r g ue s tha t l o s i ng a s ha r e o f o ne ’ s t e a c hingr esp ons ibi li ty m ight “d issua d e[] a reason able [professor] fro m m ak in g or su p p or tin g a ch ar ge of d isc rim in at ion .” S e ei d. B ec au se th e u n ive rs ity h as n otco n te st ed th is po i nt, f o r fei tinga ny a r g um en t i t m i g htha ve o n the i ss ue , we wi l la ss um e th atHoppe ’ s r emov alfr o m the av iat ion et h ics co u rs e c o n st itu te s a n ad ve rs e a c tio n . See Tyle rv. Runy on , 7 0 F .3d 45 8, 46 4 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ). B u t itis the thi rd, r atherthan the fi rs t o r seco nd , el em ent under the di re c t m etho d ofpro ofthatpre sents the bi gge st obsta cle to H op p e’s clai m : there i s n o ev iden ce of aN o. 11

- 3358 17 causall i nk be tw een Hopp e’s p ro tect ed acti vi ty and her re m ova lfro m the avi ati on e thi cs c ours e. H oppe fi rs t a rgu es thatthe “te m pora lpro xi m i ty” b et w ee n h er p ro te c te d ac tiv ity a n d th e m at er ially advers e a cti on i s s uffi ci ent t o avo i d sum m ar y j ud gm ent. W h ile th at is n or m ally tru e, s e eBur ne l l v. Gat e s Rub b e rCo. , 647 F. 3d 704, 71 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) , H oppe firs t engage d i n pr o te ct ed ac ti vi tyt w o-and- a- ha l fy ea r s be f o r e sh e w a s rem ov ed from th e a via tio n et h ics co u rs e. Se eLa l vani v. Cook Cnty. , 2 69 F
. 3d 7 85 , 7 90 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( ex pla i ni ng te m pora lpro xi m i ty re quir es that “an a dvers e em plo ym ent acti on fo l l ows cl ose on the heel s ofpro tect ed express i on”)
. M or e i m port antl y, H oppe has f ai l ed to i denti fy a n y e vi dence thatBro gan, the perso n w ho r em ove d her fro m the posi ti on, knew ofherprotect ed acti vi ty orthat h er pro tect ed acti vi ty w as “a substa nti al m ot iva ti n g fa c to r” in B ro ga n ’s d ec isio n . Se eLe i tge n v . Francis can Skem p H ealthcare, Inc. , 63 0 F
. 3d 668, 675 ( 7th Cir
. 20 11)
. W i thout such evi dence, H oppe’s te m pora l proxi m i ty ar gum ent f ai l s. See A riz a no vsk a v. Wa l

- M a rt Store s, Inc. , 682 F.3d 69 8, 70 5 ( 7 t h C i r. 20 12 ) (“T h er e is no ind i cati on that [ the pl ai nti ff’ s] EEO C charg e w as a f ac to r, much l es s a su bs ta nt i almot i va tingf ac to r, f o r [ th e d efend an t] to requ ire he r to take a l eave of abs en ce.”). H o ppe ne xta r g ue s th at D ean Aye r s, no t Br o g r an, was the fi na lde ci si o nm ak err es po ns ibl e fo r r emov i ng her fro m the avi ati on e thi cs c ours e. T here i s no di spute that A yer s knew abo ut H oppe’s EEO C charg es and her requ est for an A D A accom m od ation. Bu t H op p e’s e v i de nce

— whi chi nc l ude s th e uni ve r si ty ’ s by l aws a nd18 N o. 11

- 3358

H oppe h as notadva nc ed a c at ’ s paw the or y ofl i abi l i t y. 2 SeeHi cks v. For es tPre se rve D ist. of C ookC nty. , 677 F. 3d 781, 790 ( 7th Cir

. 2012) ( “ ‘ [ I] fa s up ervis or perf orm s an act m oti vated by [ a disc ri m inat ory or reta li atory] anim us that i s int ended by the s uper vi s or t o c ause an adver s e em pl oym en tac t i on, an d i fthata cti s a pro xi m at e c aus e ofthe ul t i m at e em pl oym en t a c t i o n, th e n th e e mpl o y e r i s l i a b l e ’ ” ( q u o t i ng S tau b v. Proc t or H os p. , ___ U .S.
_ __ , 13 1 S
. Ct
. 11 86 , 11 94 ( 20 11 ) )
. Eveni fs he ha d , the re is no ev id en ce tha t A y ers p ersu ad ed B ro g an to re m o v e H o p p e fr o m th e a v ia tio n et h ic s co u rs e. Seei d. tes ti m ony fro m the Pro vos t, Dean Du ra nte, and Profess or M iller s u gg es tin g t h at th e d ea n ap p ro ve s t h e s c h e d u le ofcl ass es and h as s u pervi sor y a uthor i ty ove r departm e n t cha irs

— d o e s n o te s t ab l i s h D e a n Ay e r s a s t he ul ti m at e dec i si o nm ak er . S ur e th e dea n “a ppr o ve [ d]” the 2 schedule o fcl ass es, but i t doe s no t fol l ow that s he had ve t o p o w er over the cou rses tau gh t and the p rofessors w ho t aught them

. H oppe has no ev i dence to p rove that to be the ca se. H oppe’s fi nalar gum ent i s about prete x t. She i nsi sts that a re aso nabl e j ury m i ght disb el i eve Brog an’ s stated ra ti onal e forr em oving herfro m the avi ati on e thi cs co ur se . F o r s upp ort, H o ppe po i nt s to he r pa ste xpe r i e nc e s t e a c hingthe c o ur s e , h e r p o s i t i v e p e r f o r m ance evaluati ons i n tea chi ng p hi l oso phy, and the f act that Brog an r em ove d h erfro m the avi ati on e thi cs c ours e sh or tly aft er h e s p ok e t o D ea n A ye rs . Th es e a re all leg i t im at e b as es for fin d in g p re te x t. SeeS y lv esterv. SO S Ch il

dre n’s Vill ages Il li nois, Inc. , 453 F
. 3d 900, 90 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( describi ng w om en em plo yee s w ho re cei ved p os i ti veN o. 11

- 3358 19 evalu ations be fore sexu a l h arassm en t ch arges bu t w ere fir ed for p oo r p er for m an c e a fte rw ar d ); Appe l b aum v. M il w auk eeM et ro. Se w erage D is t. , 340 F.3d 573 , 5 79 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ O n e c a n r e a s o n ab l y i n fe r p r e t e x tfr o m a n e mp loy er ’s s h iftin g or inc on sis te n t e x p lan at ion s.” ); M i l ler, 643 F. 3d 190, 200 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( re m anding re tal i ati on cl ai m f o r t r i alb eca us e th e pl aint i ff“ pr es en te d s uffi ci en t ev id en c e fro m w h ich a fin d er of fac t c ou ld ge n u in ely ca ll i nt o que s t i o n [ the de fe nd a nt ’ s ] h o ne s t y . ” )
. Bu tHo pp e f aces ante cedent probl em s. F i r st, Hoppe i dentifi es no e vi den ti ar y b as i s f o r i nfer ring a causal connect i on between her p ro tected acti vi ty and her re m ova l fro m the avi ati on e thi cs cour se. H oppe w as gi ven per m i ss ion to t each the co urse fro m th e d ep ar tm en t c h a i r , no t B ro ga n . Th er e is n o e vidence that B ro gan knew abo ut H oppe’s pro tect ed acti vi ty. A nd H oppe w as onl y r em ove d fr om the cour se after Br oga n beca m e cha i r ofthe A vi ati on Depart m e nt, two - a nd

a- hal fye ar s a fterH oppe fi l ed herfi rs t d isc rim i nati on charg e with the EE OC
. S eco nd , the un iversi ty never at tem pted to j usti fy herr em ova lfro m the avi ati on e thi cs cour se on the gr ounds ofpoorper f orm an c e, so her past p ositi ve ev alua ti o ns i n te ac hing ( phi losoph y) are in ap p os ite
. SeeFort ier v . Am er it ec h M obil e C om m c’ns, Inc. , 1 6 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “ Al th o u g h, i n s o me ci rcum sta nces, pre vi ous e m plo ym ent hi sto rym ay be re l evantand prob ati ve i n ass ess i ng per f or m an ce a t the t i m e o fte rm i nati on, i ts l i m i ted uti l i ty m ust a lso be r ec o g ni zed.”). F i na l l y, Hoppe o ffer s no e vi den ce t o c o ntr adic t Bro gan’ s cl ai m that s h e w as unqu al i fi ed to te ach th e a v i a t i o n e th i c s c o u r s e wh e n s h e l o s tth e p o s i t i o n . At20 N o. 11

- 3358 th e ti m e, Hoppe ha d ne ver wor k ed i n the a vi at i o n ind u s t r y, s h e h a d n o f o r ma l t r a i n i n g i n a v i a t i o n, a nd s he he l d n o de g r ees o r c e r t i fi c a t i o ns r e l e v a ntt o the fi e l d. W hi l e i t i s true tha t Br o g ani nitia l l y t o l d Hoppe tha t he w as rem oving h e r becau se sh e lacked the n eces sary quali fi cati ons to tea c h the cour se and l ate r add ed her unp ro fess i onaldem eanorduri ng the Fe dE x tr i p as a se co nda r y j us ti fi ca ti o n, th i s ev i den ce co m es to b ea r o n the p r e t e x ti n q u i r y o n l y a ft e r th e pl a i n t i ffma k e s a p r i ma fac ie s h ow in g of re ta liat ion
. Se eLa l vani, 26 9 F
. 3d at 790 ( “W hen an a dvers e em plo ym ent a cti on f ol l ows cl ose o n th e heel s o fpro tect ed expres si on, and the pla i nti ffcan show that th e p er son w ho deci ded to i m pose the a dvers e acti on knew o fthe prot ecte d conduct, the causat i on elem e n t o f th e prim a facie case is typ icall y satisfi ed

. ”). H oppe has f ai l ed to m ake thatsho w i ng her e.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON For th e above -stated reason s, th e d istri ct cou rt’s gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe unive rs i ty i s A FFI RMED .

8- 31- 12