## 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. 09

- 1716 B R EN DA O’N EA L, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, 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 . 1:07- cv-04788

— Ch arl es P. K oc or as, Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 6, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 17, 2009

Befo re B AUER, W OO D a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . S er gea nt B re nd a O’ N ealhas tw i ce s ued her em plo yer, the Ch ica go Pol i ce Depar tm ent ( “CPD ”) , thi s t i m e cl ai m i ng r eta l i ati on an d se x dis c r i mi na t i o n un de r T i t l e V I Io fthe Ci v i l R i g ht s Act, 42 U
. S. C. §§ 2000 e et seq
. T he di s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d s u mm ary j ud gm en t to th e C PD , as i t had don e before in O ’N ea l’s firs t e m p loy m en t d isc rim in at ion su it. See O’Ne a l v . Ci ty o

f Chi ca go , 3 9 2 F
. 3 d 9 0 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. We2 N o. 09

- 1716 ha ve r ev i ewe d the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s d ec i si o n de no vo c o nstru ing allf acts and reason able inference s in O ’N e a l’s f a v o r ; fi n d i n gn o e r r o r, w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Brenda O’N eal bega n her car eeras a pol i ce o ffi cerf or the CPD in 1991 , and w as prom ote d to ser gea nt i n 200 1. I n M a y 2 0 0 2 , O’ Ne a l wa s t r a ns f e r r e d fr o m t he Na r c o t i cs uni t to o ne o fthe po l i ce di st r i ct s. O’ N eal su ed the CPD i n N ove m ber20 02, cl ai m i ng tha t thi s t ransf ervi ol ate d T i t l e V I I ’ s p r o h ib i t i o n a g a i n s tr a c e a n d g e n d e r d i s c r i mi nati on. The di str i ct c ourtgr an te d the CP D’s m oti on for su m m ar y jud gm en t a n d th is c ou rtaffirm ed

. O ’N e al , 392 F. 3d 909. A fterO’Neal fi l ed her 2002 l aw sui t, the CP D tra nsf er re d her backto N ar cot i cs pera set tl em ent o fa d isp u te ove r O’ N ea l ’ s co l l ec ti ve b ar g ai ni ng a gr ee m en t. S i nc e th en, the CP D has tr ansfer re d ordetai l ed (“r eassi gned”) O’Neal ten t i m es am ong seve n othe r unit s: the Trai ni ng Acad em y, Patr olA dm i ni str ati on, Operat i onalS er vi ces A dm i ni str atio n, th e F ifth D ist ric t, A ss etF o r feit u re , Vic e C on tr ol, and the Thi rd Di str ict . E ach new rea ssi gnm ent invol ved d ifferent resp ons ibi li ties, m ost en tailed a new sup ervi sor, som e r equi re d diff er ent ho urs, and al l pro m pted O’ N ea l t o c o m pl ai n t o he r un ion, cl ai m i ngthe r ea ss i g nm ents hurt her prom oti on pros pects and were i n ret ali ati on f orher20 02 l aw sui t. On A ugust 1 4, 20 07, O’Neal i ni ti ate d thi s ca se aga i nst th e C P D, afterfi rs t fi l i ng a disc ri m i nati on char ge onN o. 09

- 1716 3 J une 28, 20 07, with the Equal Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on ( “EE OC ”)
. The CPD and O’N ealen gaged i n disc ove ry and the CP D m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent. The dis tr i ct c ourtente re d sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of the CPD on Fe bruar y 1 7, 20 09, and O’N ealtim ely filed th is a p p ea l.

I I . DI S C US S I ON A s a thre shol d m att er, O’N eal m ay sue the CP D o nl y f or th e l asttwo tr ansfer s, to Vi ce Contr oli n N ove m ber20 06 an d t o the Thi r d Di st r i cti n J une 2 00 7. The e ar l i ere i g ht re a s s i g nme nt s a r e t i me-b a r r e d b e c a us e the y p r e dat e O’N eal ’ s EEO C charg e bym or e than thr ee hund re d days. See 42 U
. S. C. § 2 00 0e -5(e)( 1)
. N orneed we consi der whethe r a l l t enr ea ss i g nm en ts c o nst i tu te o ne c o nti nuing advers e em plo ym ent a cti on, bec ause O’N eal faile d to m a k e t h is a rg u m en t o n ap p ea l. See, e.g., Lu ellen v. Ci ty of

E. Chi cago , 35 0 F
. 3d 604, 61 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( ar g um en ts no t r ai se d o n a ppea l a r e wai ve d)

. Henc e, the fi rs t e i ght r eas si gnm ents ar e t im e-bar re d and m ay be consider ed onl y a s “ back gr ound evi dence” o fthe l ast tw o a c tio n ab le t ra n sfe rs . N at ’ l R. R. P a sse nge rCorp. v. M organ , 536 U
. S. 101, 113 (2002 ). W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e nov o, cons tru ing allf acts an d r e a son able inferen ces in O ’N eal’s f avor. Wins le y v . Co ok C ounty, 56 3 F.3d 5 98, 602 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 )
. Sum m ar y j ud gm en t is properi fthe ple ading s, di sco ver y m ateri al s, di scl osur es, and affi davi ts dem onst ra te no g enui ne i ssue ofm ate ri al4 N o. 09

- 1716 f act such thatthe CP D is enti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m atter of l aw . Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c).

A . R et al i at i on To sur vi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n her r eta l iati on cl ai m , O’Neal needed to pre sent evi dence that, i fbel i eved b y a t r i ero ff ac t, woul d s ho w ( 1) tha t sh e en g a g e d i n a n a c t i v i t y p r o t e c t e d b y T i t l e V I I ; ( 2 ) th a ts he su ffered an ad verse a ction tak en by the CP D ; and ( 3) a ca us alc o nn ecti o n b etwee n the t wo, unde r e i th erthe d irect or ind irect m eth od of p roof. Se e Tom an o vich v. City of Indianap olis , 457 F.3d 65 6, 6 6 2

- 63 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); St one v. Ci ty of

Indi anap ol i s Pub
. U t i l s . D i v. , 28 1 F
. 3d 640, 64 2- 44 . O’ N ea l su c c ee d s o n th e firs t t w o e lem en ts b u t fails o n t he thi r d. Fi rs t, O’Neal enga ged i n two activ i ti es prot ecte d by T itle V II: filing h er em p loy m en t d isc rim in at i on law su it i n 2002 and fi l i ng her gr i evance f or re tal i ati on in 20 06. See 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e

- 3( a) ( defin i ng st atuto ri l y pr ote cted ac ti vi tyto inc l ude pa r ti ci pat i ngi n a Ti tl e VI Ipr o ce edi ng or opp os in g a prac tice m ad e un law ful by Title V I I ). ( By contr ast, i t di d not co nsti tute sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty w hen O’N ealco m pla i ned i n 200 7 t o Com m ander O ’D on n ell th at L i eu te n an t K u sin sk i tole ra te d ins u b or d ina ti o n b y po l i ce o ffi ce r s unde r O’ N ea l ’ s co m m an d , becau se h erco m pla i nts f ai l ed to i nd i cate thatthe behavi orwas dis cri m i nator y. To m ano vich , 457 F.3d at66 3; see O ’N ea l L et te rs o f M ay 1 & 8, 20 07 ; O’ N ea l D ep . at 3 13 :1-3 .) Se cond, O’Neal addu ced suffi ci ent e vi dence ofan adv er se e m pl o ym enta ct i o n. An a dve r se e m pl o y m en tN o. 09

- 1716 5 acti on i s o ne that“well m ight have diss uaded a re asonab l e wo r k e r f r o m ma k i ng o r s up po r t i ng a c ha r ge of d isc rim in at ion .” To m ano vich , 45 7 F
. 3d at6 64 ( quo ting Bur l i n gt on N. & Sa n t a F eRy
. Co
. v . W hite, 54 8 U.S
. 53 , 68 ( 2006 ) )
. A l ate ra l j ob tr ansferwithi n an o rg ani zati on ma y c o n s t i t u t e a n a d v e r s e empl o y me n ta c t i o n, f o r e x a mple , i fi t r educes th e em plo yee ’ s “ opportunit i es f or fu tu re ad va n c em en t.” N i ch ol s v. S. Il l
. U ni v.

— E dw ardsvil le, 510 F. 3d 772, 781 ( 7th C ir. 2007 ). C om m an d e r W iberg te st ified th a t r ep et itiv e re as sig n m en ts “w ou ld n eg at ive ly a f f e c t[ o ne ’ s ] ab i l i t y t o b e p r o mot e d fr o m a pol i ce se r g ea ntt o a l i eu te na nto n the b as i s o fa meritori o us p r o mo t i o n . ” Wib e r gD e p . a t2 3

- 2 4
. An d i nde ed , th e t wo acti onabl e t ra nsf er s were “r epeti tiv e,” co nsi deri ng as back gr ound evi dence the previ ous e ight re ass i gnm ents. T h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h th e C P D a s k s u s t o d i s c r e d i tC o mm an d er W iberg’s testim ony as “sp ecu lation, ” A p p ell ee’s Br. at27, we fi nd thati t rais es a n i ssue off act w i th r eg ar d t o O’N eal ’ s two a ct i o nabl e tr an sfer s be i ng advers e e m ploym en t a cti ons. Cf
. O ’N e al , 39 2 F
. 3d at 912 ( fi nd i ng no issue off act w here O’Neal had f ai l ed to p r e s e n ta ny e v id en c e t h at th e t ra n sfe r c ou ld “u ltim at ely d im inish he r cha nc es for p rom otion”). Thi r d, O’ N ea l pr o vi ded i ns uffi ci en t ev i den ce tha t sh e su f f er ed a n a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n b ec au se s he en ga ge d i n s ta tu to rily p ro te c te d ac tiv ity , i.e. , thatei ther ofhertwo act i onabl e t ra nsf er s o ccu rre d because ofher 2002 l aw sui t o r her 2006 gr i evance. U nd erthe dir ect m et h o d of p roof, O’N eal offered ev iden ce on ly of a ca us alc o nne ct i o n b etwee n the 2 002 lawsui t an d the tr an sfe r fro m V ice C on tr ol. T h is e vid en c e c on sis te d on ly6 N o. 09

- 1716 of Lieute na nt K us inski, w ho reco m m en d ed O’N e a l’s tr ansfer, ( 1) cal l i ng O’N eal a “co m pla i ner” an d other si m i l arnam es, D u n n D ep. at12 9: 24; and ( 2) r efer ri ng to O ’N eal as prev iously “d ating a gan g ban g e r”

— rum or s o f w hi ch pro m pted O’N eal ’ s i ni ti altransfero ut o fN ar cot i cs, w hi ch i n turn prom pted O’N ealto fi l e her20 02 l aw sui t. Id. at89 : 7- 10. These sta tem ents, m ade witho ut r efer ence to O’N eal ’ s 2 002 law sui t a nd m ade bef or e O’ N eal ar ri ved i n Vice Contr ol, co nsti tute nei therdi re ct evi dence nora “co nvi nci ng m osa i c o fci rcum sta nti al evi dence” that the CPD tr ansfer re d O’N ealou t of Vi ce C ont rol bec au se of th e 2002 law su it seven m ont hs l ater. Sylves te r v . SO S Ch il dre n’s Vill s. Ill
. , Inc. , 45 3 F
. 3d 900, 903 (7th Cir. 2006). N ordi d O’N ealpro vi de suffi ci ent e vi dence to es tabl i sh a causal connect i on und er the i nd i re ct m etho d of proo f

. Und e r t he i nd i r e c t metho d, O’ Ne a l ne e de d to pr esent ev i den ce tha t sh e m etthe CPD’ s l eg i ti m at e ex p ec ta tio n s, th at sh e w as tr ea te d les s fav or ab ly th a n s i m ilar ly sit u at ed em p loy ee s w h o d id n ot en g ag e in s t a t u t o r i l y p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y , a n d t ha t a n y n o n d i s c r i min at or y re as on s o ffer ed by th e C P D for he r tw o a c tio n ab le tr a n s f e r s w er e p re te x tu al. SeeTo m ano vich , 45 7 F
. 3d at 66 6; St one, 281 F.3d at64 4. O ’N e a l fa ils u n d er th is m etho d because she provi ded i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence that she was m eet i ng the CPD ’ s l egi ti m ate expecta ti ons. Speci fi cal l y, she f ai l ed to r ebut the CPD ’ s ass er ti on that O’N ealwas bord er l i ne i nsubor dinat e, had a c onfro ntati o na l a tt i tu d e, an d s uff er ed f r o m a n i nabi l i tyt o c o nducts tr ee t o per at i o ns tha t “j eo par di ze d the s afety o f[ an ] und er cove r offi cer . ” Kusinsk i Dep. at10 0: 14- 15. I nstea d ofN o. 09

- 1716 7 add re ssi ng the se parti cul arcr i ti cism s, O’Neal r esponded that she w as a g oo d offi ceri n other re spects , poi nti ng to her hi gh efficiency r anki ngs, A pp el l ant’ s Repl y a t 1 4; th ato th ers er g ea nt s wer e tr ea te d m or e f av o r ab l y wi th

out re f er ence to w hether they exhibi ted the sam e fa ult s, i d. at13 ; an d th at h er p e r f or m an c e w as “u nb lem ish ed .” Id. at 14. N owh er e i n her bri ef s, how eve r, does O ’N eal d en y he r i ns ubo r di na ti o n, c o nfr o nt at i o na l a tt i tu de, a nd p u tt in g a n u n d er c ov er offic er in jeop ar d y b y p oo rly co nduc tings tr ee t o per at i o ns . I nde ed, no where in th e re cor d are thes e per f or m ance i ssues co ntra dict ed, despi te O’ Ne a l ’ s nu mer o us c i t a t i o ns a t t e mpt i ng t o do so . See Pl aint i f f’ s Re spo ns e to De f en dan t’ s Rul e 56. 1 S ta te m en t o fF ac ts at2 3- 24
. O’ N ea l thus pr es en te d i ns uffi ci en t evi dence f ora re aso nabl e j ury to fi nd thatshe w as m eet i ng the CPD ’ s l egi ti m ate busi ness expectat i ons, and ther ef or e her20 07 tr ansferwas re tal i ato ry .
B. Sex D i scr i m i nati on O’ N ea l f ai l s o n h ers ex di sc r i m i na ti o n c l ai m f o r the sam e rea son as her re tal i ati on cl ai m : she f ai l ed to addu ce an y evide nc e ind icating th a t her action able tran sfers wer e be ca us e o f he r se x. I nde ed, O’ N ea l ’ s br i ef s fo cus ex clusively on th e retali ation c lai m , and O’N eal’s attorn e y c o n c e d e d ato r a l a r g u me n tth a tth e s e x d i s c r i mi nati on cl ai m has no m er i t.8 N o. 09

- 1716 I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso n s d iscussed abov e, we A FFIRM the d istri ct c ou rt’s grant of sum m ary j ud gm en t on O ’N eal’s em plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on cl ai m s.

11- 17- 09