## 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

- 2443 R OBERT L EO NA RD , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. E AS T ERN I LLINO IS U NIVER S ITY, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07 C2172

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 26, 2010

Befo re B AUER, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T IND ER, C ircu it Judge. Rober t Leo nard, a N ati ve A m er ican, worke d a t East er n I l l i noi s Un i ver si ty ( “EI U ”) f or n ea rly tw en ty ye ar s, d u rin g w h ich tim e E IU p as se d h im ove r f orse ver alpro m oti ons. Bel i eving tha t the m ost re cent denie d prom oti on was m oti vate d by a nt i

- N ati ve Am er i ca n b i as , Le o na r d s ue d EI U underTi tl e V I Io fthe Civi lRi ghts A ct o f19 64, 42 U

. S. C. §§ 2000 e- 1 - 2000e- 17. The dis tr i ct c ou rt g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r2 N o. 09

- 2443 ofEI U , and i n Leonar d’s appeal, we consi der de novo w he th er the foll ow ing evide nc e, con stru ed i n L e o n ard ’s fav or, cre at es a tr iab l e i s s u e o n h is T itle V II c laim

. See Tur ne r v. TheSa l oon, Lt d. , 5 95 F.3d 679, 68 3 (7th C ir. 2010). L eon ard i s a N ative A m erican th roug h th e fam il y history ofhi s f ather, wh o w as a m em bero fthe Sag i naw Band of the Oj ibw ay N ati on. W hi l e a t EI U , Leonar d w or ked as a “bui l ding ser vi ces w or ker, ” a j ani tor i aland m echanical supp or t pos i ti on, but hi s t i m e o n cam pu s was m or e than a j ob f or a paycheck. Leonar d was an outspok en advoc ate o n N a t i v e A me r i c a n i s s u e s , a n d h e fr e q u e n t l y c o mpla ined to the EI U stud ent ne w spaper about N ati veAm er i ca n- r el at ed ar ti cl es o ra dve r ti se m en ts that he f ound offensi ve. Leo na r d was a pa r ti cul arc r i ti c o f“ Chi efI l l i ni wek, ” th e i m age f or m er l y use d by the U ni ver sit y ofI l l i noi s a t U rba na- Ch am pai gn ( “U o fI ”) to r epres ent Unive rs i ty ath leti cs. Leon ard w as no t alone in opp osing th e C hief, w h ich h ad ge n er at ed co n tr ov er sy for d e c ad es . Se e, e . g. , Jo d i S . C oh en , Ha il to th e C hief

— and Fa re w el l, C h i. T rib ., Fe b . 22, 20 07, at 1 ; Tr ac y D od d s, Illin o i s F a ns Sti ll D ivi ded O ve rUs eof

M as co t, In d ian apol i s S tar, S ept. 4, 20 05, atC1. B u t L eo n ar d ’s o p p o s i t i o n ev en led to a n at ion ally p u b lici ze d l aws ui t. S o m et i m e ar o un d 2 00 5, Le o na r d s ue d the “Ho no rthe Chi efS o ci ety ” f o rde ny i nghi m e nt r y t o the sh ow in g of a p ro -C h ief m ov ie, al l eg ed ly b as ed on h is N at i ve A m er i ca n s ta tu s. Le o na r d’ s i nv o l ve m en t i n the l aw sui t, w hi ch ult i m ate l y set tl ed out of cour t, re cei ved CN N news cove ra ge. A s m enti oned, i n bet w een hi s ci vi lr i ghts acti vi ti es, Leonar d had a re gul ar j ob at EIU a s a bui l ding servi cesN o. 09

- 2443 3

w or ker

. Overthe yea rs , Leonar d parti ci pated i n sev er al i nter vi ew s ( f our orfi ve, he di dn ’ t r ecal lexactly) f or prom oti on t o the m or e su pervi sory “ bui l ding ser vi ces su bfo r eman, ” but no ne l ed to a pr o m o ti o n. One of th e m o r e r ec en t i nt er vi ews , o n Mar ch2 4, 2 00 5, t r i ggered the dispute that i s the bas i s o fthi s l aw sui t. L eo n ar d int er vie w ed be for e a p an el of s i x E IU su p er visors: H e r b M cE lw ee, T ravis M agee, Valerie Leon ard (no relati on), K evin L arkin, Steven G ilbert, and J ohn Si gler. A l though the a pp el l ant had worke d w i th al lo fthes e p eo p le b efo re , th e in te rv iew st ar te d ou t t en se ly for h im w hen M cElwee and M agee r em ove d thei r j acke ts to re vealshi rt s with the Ch i efI l l i ni w ek l ogo . M cElwee’ s a nd M age e’ s cho i ce t o w earChie fshi rt s that day m i ght ha ve been unrem ar kabl e g i ven the “M ar ch M adness” cont ex t. Duri ng the 20 05 col l ege bas ket

ba l ls ea so n, the U o fImen’ s te am was m ak i nga s tr o ng sh ow ing in the N C A A tourn am e n t. In fact, on the very M ar ch2 4 dat e of L eonar d’ s i nt er vi ew, the F i g ht i ngI l l i ni w er e s cheduled t o pla y ( an d u lti m ate l y won) a S w eet Six te en m a tc h ag ain st th e U n ive rs ity of W isc on sin

— M i l wauk ee . Thi s I l l i nib as k etba l lhy pe pr o vi des o ne po ss ibl e, i nno cuo us e xpl an at i o n f or M cEl wee ’ s an d M ag ee ’ s Chi efs hi r ts
. A s Le o na r d a ckno wl edg ed dur i ng hi s depo si ti o n, the EI U ca m pus was h om e to many I l l i ni f an s, w ho fr eque nt l y wor e Chi efa ppar eldur i ngthe 20 05 s ea so n. St i l l, M ar ch M adness a si de, L eonard thoughtthat M cElwee and M age e wore thei r Ch i efshi rt s a s a st ate
me n ta g a i n s tL e o n a r d ’ s o p p o s i t i o n t o C h i e fI l l i n i we k

. He4 N o. 09

- 2443

wa s o ffe n d e d b y th e s h i r t s a nd f e l t th a th i s a n g e rc a me ac ro ss d u rin g th e int er vie w , n eg at ive ly affe c t i n g h is per f o r m an ce . As ittur ne d o ut, Le o na r d di dn’ t g etthe prom oti on a fterhi s M ar ch 200 5 int er vie w , but notab l y, n o one el se w as prom ote d to bui l ding ser vi ces subf or em ana t th att i m e. The r ec o r d do es not r ev ea lho w m an y othe r candidate s, i fany, p ar ticipate d i n the M ar ch 200 5 i nter vi ew s, h ow L eonar d perf or m ed com pared to tho se c a nd i da t e s , o rwh y n o o ne wa s p r o mot e d. S ho r t l y a ft e rh i s i nt e r v i e w, i n Apr i l2 0 0 5 , Le o na r d ma de a com p l aintt o EI U’s Offi ce o fCi vi lRi g ht s ab o ut M cEl wee ’ s an d M ag ee ’ s Chi efs hi r ts
. Af te rhe ar i ngLe o nar d’s com pla i nt, a re prese ntati ve from the ci vi lr i ghts offi ce t ol d M cElwee and M age e no t t o w earChie fapparel when dea l i ngwi thLe o na r d, a nd Le o na r d s ai d tha t he w as sat i sfi ed w i th thi s o utcom e. Several m ont hs later, in O ctob er 2005, Leon ard i nt ervi ew ed aga i n f orthe bui l ding ser vi ces s ubfo re m an j ob al ong w i th se ven othercandi dates. The i nter vi ew panel consi ste d ofthe sam e s i x su p er vi sor s, none ofwh om w or e a n yt hi ng I l l i ni

- re l ate d oro ther w i se offensi ve to Leo na r d. Le o na r d tho ug httha t he i nt er vi ewe d wel l, b ut unfo rtunatel y, he didn’t do w el l enough to getthe prom oti on. Based o n the num er i calscor i ng sy ste m used by th e p an el, L eo n ar d ran ke d se ve n th ou t o f th e e igh t c an d idates. Onlythe cand id at es w i th the to p thre e s cor es we r e p r o mot e d. Leo na r d s ue d EI U underTi tl e VI I, c l aim i ngtha t th e i nter vi ew panel ’ s decis i on notto pro m ote hi m was re taliati o n fo rhi s Apri l2 00 5 ci vi lr i g ht s co m pl aintabo utN o. 09

- 2443 5 the Chi efI l l i ni w ek shi rts. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofEI U , co ncl ud i ng tha t Leonar d had no evi den c e l i nki ng the deni ed prom oti on to the c i vi lr i ghts com pla i nt. Leonar d app eal s. The contr ove rs y s urr ounding the use o fChie fI l l i niw ek to sy m b oliz e U of I at h let ics is n otn ew to th is c ou rt . In C rue v. A ik en , 3 7 0 F

. 3 d 6 6 8 , 6 78

- 80 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , we a ddr e s s e d the t e ns i o n b e t we e n s t ud e nt s ’ F i rs tAmen dm ent ri g htt o p r o t e s tthe Ch i e fa nd the s moo th o pe r a t i on of the U ni ver si ty’ s athl eti c prog ra m s. ( W hi l e the fr ee spe ec h i ss ue s i n Cru ewere i m port an t, the Cru eopinion ’s l ast i ng co ntribut i on m ay be i ts schol ar l y di scussi on o f gr eatco l l ege ni cknam es, i ncl ud i ng the al l

- ti m e f avo ri te “B an an a S lu g” of th e U n ive rs ity of C alifo rn ia

— Sant a C ru z. Id. at67 1- 72. ) Fo rtunat ely , thi s ca se does not re q u ire u s t o d e l ve int o th e C h ief c on tr ov er sy , w h ich is re l evanto nl y insof aras it rel ate s t o the Ap ri l20 05 c ivil rig h ts co m p lain t u n d er lyin g L eo n ar d ’s T i t l e V II r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. Ti tl e VI Ipr o hibi ts a n e m pl o y erfr o m r et al i at i ng aga i nst a n em plo yee fo r conduct thati s pro tect ed und er th e A c t. See 42 U

. S. C. § 2 000e

- 3(a )

. A pl ai nti ffm ay m ake o ut a Tit l e VI I re tal i ati on cl ai m usi ng ei therthe dir ect ori nd i re ct m etho d ofpro of, al though the di stincti on between the tw o m etho ds “i s o ften fl eet i ng. ” Turn er, 59 5 F. 3d at 688 ( quoti ng M artino v. M C I C om m c’ns Se rvs . , Inc. , 574 F. 3d 447, 45 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) )

. The di rect m etho d req u ire s “ evi dence of( 1) a sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty; (2) a m ateriall y ad verse ac tion taken by the em p loyer; and (3 ) a causalco nnecti on be tw een the two. ” Id. at68 76 N o. 09

- 2443 ( ci tat i on o m i tte d). The ind i re ct m etho d al so re quir es ev i den ce o f th e fi r stt wo e l ement s, “ buti ns te ad o fpr o ving a di re ct c ausall i nk, the pla i nti ffm ust s how thathe was perf or m i ng hi s j ob sat i sf acto ril y an d that he was tr eat ed l es s f av orabl y tha n a s i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed empl o y ee who did n ot com pla i n ofdi scr i m i nati on. ” St ephe ns v. Er i cks on , 569 F.3d 779, 786-87 (7th Cir. 2009) (ci tation om itted ). Leo na r d ar g ue s th at he ha s sh o wn a tr iable i ss ue und erthe direc t m etho d ofpro of, and EI U r esponds that Leonar d’s case f ai l s o n eac h oft h e three di re ct- m etho d el em ents. W e nee d only focus on the thi rd el em ent, w hetherLe onar d can es tabl i sh a causalco nnecti on be

tw een hi s ci vi lr i ghts com pla i nt and EI U ’ s f ai l ure to p r o mo t e h i m. Fr o m o ur r e v i e w o f the r e c o r d, Le o na r d s i mpl y l acks a n y e v i d e nc e l i n k i n gh i s A p r i l2 0 0 5 C h i e f

- r e l a t e d c o mpla i nt to hi s den i ed prom oti on. Leonar d has pre sente d no e vi dence thatany ofhi s inter vie w er s, o r anyo ne el se at EIU, w as anger ed b y th e com pla i nt. On the c ontr ar y, al though Leo nard te sti fi ed that he di dn ’ t hav e “ gr eat re spect” f orEI U ’ s ci vi lr i ghts offi ce, he a cknowle dged th a tE I U e n c o u r a g e d i t s e mp l o y e e s t o b r i n gf o r th c o mpla i nts o fdi scr i m i nati on wh eneve r they fel t nec ess ar y. T he scoring res u lt s f or Leon ard ’s Oc tober 200 5 intervi ew al so co nt ain no hi nt o f unl awfuldisc r i m i na ti o n. U n d er the i nter vi ew pro cess , the i nter vi ew panelas ked each c andidate a ser i es ofst andardi zed, pre -w ritten q u es tions. Each i nter vi ew erthen gave the candidate a sco re o f1 to 5 points in eac h offi ve j ob- re l ate d categ or i es, f ora p os sible to talsco re o f5 to 25 fro m ea ch i nter vi ew erN o. 09

- 2443 7 and, w i th si x i nter vi ew er s, a pos sibl e co m bi ned tot al sc o r e o f3 0 to 1 50

. The i nt er vi ewe r s wer e al lc o ns i stent insc or in g L eo n a r d a m o n g t h e b ot to m 50 % of th e c an d idates. Leonar d’s re sul ti ng co m bi ne d to talsco re o f10 9 pla ced hi m o nl y s eve nth out ofthe ei ght c andid at es, f ar fr o m the t o p thr ee who e arne d a pr o m o ti o n. Gi ve n the s ta nd ar di ze d i nt er vi ew f o r m ata nd the c o nsi ste ncy o fthe i nter vie w er s’ sco ring, Leonar d cannot show that a ny i nter vi ew er ( s) deni ed hi m a prom oti on inret alia tio n for h is c ivi l r i gh ts co m p lain t. See id

. at 788 ( describi ng a si m i l ari nter vi ew p ro cess with s tandardi zed qu estions an d nu m erical scoring as “reason able an d f air”). N otab ly, M cE lw ee an d M agee, the C hief shirt w earers m ostl i kel y t o be upseto ve r Leonar d’s com pla i nt, ga ve L e o n a r d s c o r e s th a tw e r e w i th i n t h e ma i n s t r e a m. M cE lw ee’s and M agee’s t o t a l scores f or Leon ard w ere 19 and 18, r espect i vel y, w hi ch w er e a ctual l y hi gherthan the 1 7 g i ven byLark i n and the 1 6 g i ven b y Sig l er . True, M cE lw ee and M age e g ave Leonar d the l owest s cor e o f any c andidate , but so did Val er i e Leo nard and Gilber t. This consi ste nt sc or i ng patt er n by th e inter vi ew erpanel sugge sts o nl y that Leo nard w as o utperf or m ed by othe r ca ndi dat es , no t th athe was the t ar g eto fr et al i at i o n. L eo n ar d arg u es th at “s u sp icio u s t i m in g” be tw ee n h is ci vi lr i ghts com pla i nt and hi s deni ed p ro m oti on i m pli es a ca us alr el at i o ns hi p, b utwe ar e unpe r su ade d. The s i xm onth l ag betw een Leo nard’ s Ap ri l20 05 com pla i nt to th e ci vi lr i g ht s o ffi ce a nd hi s Oct o ber 2005 uns ucc es sful i nter vi ew i s t oo l ong to i nfe r a l i nk be tw een the two. See Turn er, 59 5 F

. 3d at 68 7 (fi nd i ng no connect i on8 N o. 09

- 2443 between a fi ring and the em plo yee ’ s com pla i nts o f sex ua l ha rassm en t m ore tha n a h alfyear earli er); Argyropou l os v. Ci ty of Al t on , 53 9 F. 3d 724, 734 ( 2008 ) ( s a me w he re tim e interval w as seve n w eeks); c f. Spiegl a v. H ull, 371 F. 3d 9 28 , 9 43 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( i nfe rr i ng ca usati on wher e anunf av o r ab l e j o b tr an sfero cc ur r ed j us t f our d ays after the em p loyee’s protec ted sp eech ). The t i m i ngi ss ue mightb e cl oser ifwe co ns i der ed th e p eriod im m ed iately a fte r Leon ard ’s M arch 2005 interview , r atherthan afterhi s Octo ber20 05 i nter vi ew , as th e ti m e when th e den i ed pr o m o ti o n t o o kpl ace. Ifthe i nter vi ew panel ’ s d ecis i on notto pro m ote Leonar d based on h is M arch i nt erview c am e s hortly after Le ona rd ’s Ch ief

re la t e d co m p lain t a ga in st M c E lw ee an d M ag ee , th is cl ose te m pora lco nnecti on co uld bo l ste r a ci rcum stanti al c as e o f ret alia tio n . U n for t u n at ely for L eo n ar d , his evi dence does not est abl i sh such a cl ose se quence of eve nts. The r eco rd sho w s that Leo nard intervi ew ed on Ma r c h 24 , 20 0 5 , a n d th e n ma d e h i s c i v i lr i g h t s c o mpl aints o m et i m e i n Apr i l2 00 5, b utLe o nar d o ffer ed no evi dence on w hen the panel m ade i ts dec isio n in rel ati on to these two ev ents. Ver y c oncei vabl y, the deci si on not t o p r o mo t e L e o n a r d a ft e rh i s Ma r c h i n t e r v i e w c a me we l lb e f o r e h e ma d e h i s A p r i lc i v i lr i g h t s c o mpl aint, i n whi ch c as e Leo na r d’ s cl ai m o fs us pi ci o us ti m i ngunque st i o nabl y f ai l s. F o ra s us pi ci o us - ti m i ng r e t a l i a t i o n th e o r y, th e o r d e r o fev e n t s i s e v e n mo r e i mp o rtan t tha n th e tim e betw een them ; the th eory d oesn ’t w or k i fthe re tal i ato ryact preced es the pr ote cted ac ti vi ty. Even assum i ng tha t the deci si on notto pro m ote Leonar d cam e “ on the hee l s” of h is A pri l20 05 ci vi lr i ghtsN o. 09

- 2443 9

c om p lain t, Spiegl a , 37 1 F. 3d at 943, L eonar d sti l lcould not av o i d s um m ary j udg m en t be ca us e “s us pi ci o us t i m i ng al one i s insuffi cien t” to support a Ti tl e VI Ir eta l i ati on c laim

. Turn er, 5 95 F

. 3d at6 87( quota ti o n o m i tt ed)

. The ti m i ng i ssue i s eve n l ess si gni fi cant i n thi s case gi ven the f act that, duri ng hi s ca re eratEI U , Leonar d had seve ra lunsuccess ful i nter vi ew s fora prom oti on. Since Leonar d repeat edl y f ai l ed to ge t a pro m oti on in pri or yea rs , E I U ’ s deci si on notto pro m ote hi m i n 200 5 was not “suspi ci ous. ” C

f. Spiegla , 37 1 F

. 3d at 94 3 ( no ting th at th e adv er se j o b tr an sfero cc ur r ed afte rs ev enyears o funinterru p ted pos tings on the p lai nt iff’ s p referred j ob). I n a l as t eff o r t to a vo i d s um m ary j udg m en t, Le o na rd p oin ts t o c o m m en ts by tw o of h is in te rv iew er s, L ar kin an d G ilbe rt, t h at p u rp or te d ly sh ow a n a n ti-N at ive A m er ican bi as. W e m ay eas i l y di sm i ss these as “s tr ay re m ar ks” that d o not s how thatei therLark i n orGilber t use d th e interview proc ess to retaliate aga inst L eon ard ’s c ivil rig h ts co m p lain t. Pet t s v . Rock l e dgeFu r ni t ureLL C, 534 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2008). T he La rkin com m en t cam e in 1994 or 1995 , after Leon ard ha d fi l ed a co m pl aintwi ththe c i vi lr i g ht s o ffi ce abou t EI U stu de nt s ma k i ngCh i e f

- r e l a t e d s t a t e men t s t o wa r ds h im . Follow in g t h at co m p lain t, L ar kin alleg ed ly to ld Leonar d “ that i f I [ Leonar d] cut m y hai r and a c t li ke ot h er s, I w ou ld n ’t ha ve as m an y pr ob lem s as I d i d .” As s u mi n gth a tL a r k i n’ s c o mme n tc o u l d s u g g e s ts o me l eve lo fanti

- N ati ve A m er i can bi as, i t i s fa r too r em ote fro m the 2005 deni ed p ro m oti on t o hel p Leonard’ s ca se. T o sup p ort an infere n c e of retaliati on, a discrim inatory10 N o. 09

- 2443

com m ent m ust be r el ate d i n bot h t im e a nd subj ect m att er t o th e a d ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n . See id

. L a r k i n ’ s c o mm en t w as ne ither, as it cam e a de cad e before Le ona rd ’s 2005 i nter vi ew and had nothi ng to d o w i th hi s pro spects f orpro m oti on. See i d. ( dism i ssing an offhand , se xi st c o mme n tth a to c c u r r e d mo r e th a n a y e a rb e f o r e th e e mp loyee’s firing ). T h e G ilbe rt c om m en t ide n tifie d b y L eo n ar d is eq u ally re m ote
. S om eti m e duri ng the 19 90s, Leonar d confron ted t h e I l l i n o i s g o v e r n o rd u r i n ga t o w n h a l lm e e t i n g, c o mpla i ni ng tha t the go ver norhad not re sponded to Leonar d’s m ult i ple a p pli cati ons to m eetand dis cuss N at ive A m er ica n iss u es . In co n n ec tio n w ith th is com pla i nt to the gov er nor, G ilbert al l ege dlyco m m ented th at L eon ard “d idn ’t know his place.” W ha tever G ilbert m eant by thi s a m b iguous com m ent, i t was ent i re l y unre l ate d to the deci si on s eve ra l y ears l ate r not to prom ote Leo na r d t o a b ui l di ngs er vi ce s su bfo r eman. Insu m , L eo n a r d lac ks ev id en c e t h at E IU offic ials re fused to prom ote hi m i n re tal i ati on f orhi s Ap ri l20 05 ci vil rights c om pla i nt, o r f orthatm att erany re aso n o th e rth a n h i s r e l a t i v e l y p o o ri n t e r v i e w p e r f o r ma n c e . We A FFIRM th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g m en t i n f a v o ro fE I U.

5- 26- 10