In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-2070

DIANE M. RIPBERGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CORIZON, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Indiana.

No. 1:11 CV 01394— Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 2014 — DECIDED DECEMBER 10, 2014

Before FLAUM and ROVNER, Circuit Judges and KENDALL,

District Judge.*

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Diane Ripberger lost her job as a

substance abuse counselor for the Indiana Department of

Corrections (“IDOC”)whenCorizon,Incorporated(“Corizon”)

The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois,

*

sitting by designation.
2 No. 13-2070

contracted with IDOC to provide counseling for Indiana

prisoners.Ripberger sued Corizon, claiming sex discrimination

and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and age discrimination and retaliation

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The district court granted

Corizon’s motion for summary judgment, and Ripberger

appeals. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. 

I.

Because we are reviewing the district court’s grant of

summary judgment against Ripberger, we recount the facts in

the light most favorable to her, noting any discrepancies in the

parties’ evidence where relevant. See Zepperi-Lomanto v. Am.

Postal Workers Union, 751 F.3d 482, 483 (7th Cir. 2014).

Ripberger, who was born in 1951, began working for IDOC as

a substance abuse counselor in 1991. As relevant here, she

returned to work as a counselor in March 2008 (after having

retired in 2007) at IDOC’s Pendleton Correctional Facility near

her home in Anderson, Indiana. In addition to being a licensed

social worker for the State of Indiana, Ripberger has a bachelor’s degree in sociology and over 60 hours towards a master’s

degree in pastoral counseling. During the relevant time period,

Ripberger worked as a Substance Abuse Counselor IV,

counseling primarily Level 4 offenders in the Indiana Reformatory at Pendleton. Level 4 offenders are those who are serving

very lengthy sentences and have committed serious or violent

crimes.
No. 13-2070 3

A. Ripberger’s Support of Connie Orton-Bell

Ripberger lost her job in 2010, when IDOC contracted out

its substance abuse counseling program to Corizon. Ripberger

alleges that Corizon’s decision not to hire her stemmed in part

from previous events involving her supervisorin 2009, Connie

Orton-Bell. Mick Schoenradt, who was the Acting Substance

Abuse Director for IDOC, supervised Orton-Bell. Sometime in

2009 and early 2010 both Orton-Bell and Ripberger complained

that their desks were being used after hours. According to

Ripberger, they were told it was “just” staff members, not

inmates, using their desks for sex, and that if they found that

troubling they could simply wash down their desks daily.

Shortly thereafter, however, it came to light that Orton-Bell

herself was having an affair with the Major in charge of

custody, a sexual liaison that was apparently deemed unacceptable, despite IDOC’s tolerance of the aforementioned

sexual after-hours conduct. Ultimately, both Orton-Bell andthe

Major were terminated because of the affair, but unlike OrtonBell, the Major was able to quickly receive unemployment

benefits, keep all of his benefits (including his pension), and

begin working again at the prison on a contract basis shortly

thereafter. Orton-Bellfiled a suit under Title VII alleging claims

of sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The full details of Orton-Bell’s complaints and her

charge of discrimination can be found in Orton-Bell v. Ind.,

759 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2014). Ripberger supported Orton-Bell’s

sex discrimination complaint by explaining to Orton-Bell how

to file a grievance and sitting in on her hearings as a silent

employee witness. 
4 No. 13-2070

B. IDOC’sSubstance Abuse Recovery Program at Pendleton 

IDOC organized its substance abuse counseling services

around offenders categorized from Level 1 through 4. As

stated above, Ripberger worked during the relevant time

period with Level 4 inmates in an area of the Pendleton

complex known as the Reformatory. There was also a “therapeutic community” for Level 2 and 3 inmates in a separate

facility called the Community Industrial Facility. Level 1

inmates received therapy at still anotherlocation known as the

Outside Dorm. Unlike the Reformatory, the Community

Facility and the Outside Dorm were located outside of the

fenced area on the Pendleton complex. At the time of the

privatization, seven IDOC employees worked as substance

abuse counselors in the three counseling areas at Pendleton.

Three counselors, Diane Diggins, Kathryn Choate, and Randy

Smith, worked with the Level 1 offenders in the Outside Dorm.

Three other counselors, Avery Thomas, Joanne MasseyNeskov, and Anna Sasin, worked in the Community Industrial

Facility with the Level 2 and 3 inmates. Ripberger was the only

counselor working with Level 4 offenders in the Reformatory.

She maintains that her primary caseload was not the Reformatory and that she provided therapy to all levels of offenders.

Indeed, before 2010, Ripberger had workedseveral hours a day

in the Outside Dorm, but in early 2010 when it became a

therapeutic community providing continuous treatment in an

inpatient setting, she no longer had a caseload there. It thus is

undisputed that between March and August 2010 she did not

counsel any inmates outside of the Reformatory and that she

was also the only counselor assigned to the Reformatory. The
No. 13-2070 5

Reformatory position was eliminated when IDOC outsourced

the provision of counseling to Corizon.

C. IDOC’s Decision to Privatize Counseling Services

In the summer of 2010, IDOC employed 93 substance abuse

counselors at prisons throughout Indiana. At that time, IDOC

determined it would outsource its substance abuse counseling

positions to Corizon. Although Corizon planned to retain as

many IDOC substance abuse counselors as possible, the

contract between IDOC and Corizon provided that Corizon

would hire only 88 substance abuse counselors. As Acting

Substance Abuse Director for IDOC, Schoenradt was slated to

continue supervising the substance abuse program for Corizon

when the transition was completed in September 2010. To that

end, Corizon delegated the hiring and placement decisions to

Schoenradt. 

Schoenradt created a staffing plan and a do-not-hire list

based on the need to reduce employees and the needs at the

various prisons. Ripberger did not appear on the do-not-hire

list, which named a very few employees whose performance

did not warrant continued employment. Schoenradt instead

placed Ripberger’s name next to Randy Smith on his staffing

plan to indicate that one of the two of them would be hired for

an open position at Pendleton. On a color-coded spreadsheet

classifying IDOC employees based on their experience,

Ripberger’s name appeared in gray, which meant she was

“good to go” for continued employment. 

Ripberger and other IDOC employees learned about the

decision to privatize substance abuse counseling services at a

meeting on August 13, 2010. Employees were told that they
6 No. 13-2070

would no longer be employed by IDOC but that they could

apply for positions with Corizon. The hiring process was

expected to be quickly completed over the next week so that

Corizon could completely take over the substance abuse

counseling services effective September 1, 2010. 

Schoenradt was present at the meeting along with Alan

Finnan, the Superintendent of Pendleton. At that meeting,

Ripberger was standing by Superintendent Finnan and

Schoenradt when she said to Finnan, “I’m kind of feeling on

the short end of the stick here.” Ripberger says she was

referring to her support of Orton-Bell and her discrimination

claim. She testified that Finnan replied, “There might be a

reason for that.” In her deposition, Ripberger acknowledged

that she knew at the time that there would no longer be a

substance abuse counselor inside the Reformatory, and so she

asked Schoenradt where he was planning to send her. She

remembers Schoenradt telling her that he thought he had

“something else” in mind for her. Ripberger recalls that after

this exchange, Finnan asked to speak with Schoenradt privately and they left together. Schoenradt, for his part, recalls

speaking with many Pendleton employees that day but does

not recall talking to Ripberger specifically. 

D. Corizon’s Hiring Process

After the privatization announcement, interested IDOC

employees were instructed to apply and interview for a

position with Corizon. All seven substance abuse counselors

working at Pendleton applied for the six positions then

available in light of the decision to eliminate counseling

services in the Reformatory. Because Corizon wanted to retain
No. 13-2070 7

IDOC employees whenever possible, it conducted cursory

interviews to determine which IDOC employees wanted to

begin working for Corizon. Representatives from Corizon

visited IDOC facilities to conduct interviews between August

16 and 18. Corizon employees Royace Gibson and Mary

Mansfield interviewed Ripberger and asked only why she 1

wanted to be a substance abuse counselor. Ripberger believes

that other applicants received more thorough interviews and

that her interview was a pretense. 

Schoenradt explained that to maintain continuity of care,

Corizon hired the six substance abuse counselors who had

been working in the Outside Dorm and the Community

Facility for the six positions it needed to fill in those areas.

Because the position in the Reformatory was eliminated,

Ripberger was not offered a position at Pendleton. A Corizon

recruiter called her on August 19, 2010, and informed her that

although the counseling position in the Reformatory at

Pendleton was being eliminated, there were positions available

at the Miami or Putnamville Correctional Facilities. Although

Ripberger denies “slamming” down the phone, she acknowledges that she informed the recruiter that she had no interest

in traveling, warned her never to call again, and hung up the

phone. Earlier that same day, Ripberger had appeared with

Orton-Bell at the finalhearing onher discrimination complaint.

Finnan was present and testified at the hearing, and although

Ripberger did not interact with him, she maintains that he

seemed “surprised” and “irritated” to see her there. Shortly

The district court erroneously identified Mansfield as an IDOC employee.

1
8 No. 13-2070

thereafter, Ripbergerreceived the call from Corizon informing

her that she would not be hired at Pendleton.

Ripberger instituted this suit alleging sex discrimination,

retaliation, and age discrimination claims under Title VII and

the ADEA. The district court granted Corizon’s motion for

summary judgment. The court acknowledged that Ripberger

was a “qualified and capable” substance abuse counselor but

concluded that the evidence showed only that she lost her job

because she was the “unfortunate victim” of a reduced work

force in the wake of IDOC’s privatization of its substance abuse

counseling program. Ripberger appeals.

II.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment

de novo, construing all facts and reasonable inferences in the

light most favorable to Ripberger. See, e.g., Hutt v. AbbVie Prods.

LLC, 757 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2014). We first consider

Ripberger’s argument that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment on her claims of sex and age discrimination. Employment discrimination under Title VII or the ADEA

may be proven using either the so-called “direct” or “indirect

method.” Andrews v. CBOCS W., Inc., 743 F.3d 230, 234 (7th Cir.

2014). Ripbergertakes issue with the district court’s decision to

analyze her evidence separately under both the direct method

and the indirect McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting approach,

see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and

claims that the court should have instead considered what she

characterizes as the “totality” of the evidence. It is true that we

have noted that “it is debatable whether the two methods are

sharply distinguishable,” Hutt, 757 F.3d at 691 because “when
No. 13-2070 9

all is said and done, the fundamental question at the summary

judgment stage is simply whether a reasonable jury could find

prohibited discrimination.” Bass v. Joliet Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 86,

746 F.3d 835, 840 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Coleman v. Donahoe, 667

F.3d 835, 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (Wood, J., concurring) (“By now ...

the various tests that we insist lawyers use have lost their

utility... . In order to defeat summary judgment, the plaintiff

one way or the other must present evidence showing that she

is in a class protected by the statute, that she suffered the

requisite adverse action (depending on her theory), and that a

rational jury could conclude that the employer took that

adverse action on account of her protected class, not for any

non-invidious reason.”). But contrary to Ripberger’s assertion,

none of the cases she cites explicitly disavows the use of the

direct and indirect McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting method

as an appropriate framework for answering the ultimate

question of whether a plaintiff has marshaled sufficient

evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Moreover, as will be

discussed in detail, there is no reason to believe that

Ripberger’s claims would succeed regardless of how the

evidence is viewed. So it ultimately makes no difference

whether or not the district court collapsed the direct and

indirect methods for proving discrimination. 

A. Sex Discrimination

We begin with her sex discrimination claim. Title VII

forbids an employer from refusing to hire or otherwise

discriminating against an individual “with respect to his

compensation, terms, conditions, orprivilegesof employment”

on the basis of sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Without specifically referencing the direct or indirect method, Ripberger
10 No. 13-2070

simply argues that she presented evidence of sex discrimination. Under the direct method, Ripberger may rely on direct or

circumstantial evidence of discrimination sufficient to permit

a trier of fact to conclude that unlawful discrimination motivated Corizon not to hire her. See Bass, 746 F.3d at 841.

Ripberger may create an inference of discriminatory intent

using direct evidence (that is, evidence of discriminatory intent

without resort to inference) or circumstantial evidence such as

suspicious timing or ambiguous statements, evidence that

others outside the protected class were systematically treated

better, or evidence that the employer gave a pretextual reason

for the adverse employment action. Hutt, 757 F.3d at 691; Good

v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2012)

(listing circumstantial evidence that may create an inference of

discrimination); Naficy v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Serv., 697 F.3d 504,

513 (7th Cir. 2012). Whether explicitly considered under the

“direct method” ornot,Ripberger’s evidence of sex discrimination is too thin to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude

she was not offered a position by Corizon because of her sex.

At the outset, we note that there is nothing in Corizon’s

hiring process on its face that suggests it is guilty of sex

discrimination. By the beginning of September 2010, Corizon

had hired 59 former IDOC substance abuse counselors at

facilities throughout Indiana. Thirty-five of those counselors,

or 59%, were female. At Pendleton itself four of the six counselors hired were female—67%. There is thus no evidence that

Corizon gave males preferential treatment in its hiring decisions. See Good, 673 F.3d at 675. (evidence that employees

outside the protected class received systematically better

treatment may create an inference of discrimination). 
No. 13-2070 11

Her primary evidence of sex discrimination is the fact that

Randy Smith was hired by Corizon despite the fact that he was

less qualified than Ripberger. Because it is undisputed that

Ripberger was qualified for a substance abuse position, the

question under either the direct or indirect method is whether

Corizon has advanced a legitimate reason for hiring Smith

instead of Ripberger. See Hitchcock v. Angel Corps., Inc., 718 F.3d

733, 737-38 (7th Cir. 2013) (when prima facie case and pretext

analysis overlap it makes sense to inquire directly into legitimacy of employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason for its

action). Corizon presented evidence that when it took over

counseling services for IDOC, its primary goal was to hire as

many existing IDOC substance abuse counselors as possible

(with the exception of those appearing on the no-hire list) and

maintain continuity of care. Unfortunately, the Reformatory

position where Ripberger had most recently been working was

eliminated. Thus, Corizon staffed the six remaining available

positions with those substance abuse counselors who were at

that time working in the Outside Dorm or the Community

Industrial Facility. At the time of the transition, Randy Smith

had a caseload in the Outside Dorm. Schoenradt testified that

when he made his staffing plan he did not know whether

Smith would seek employment with Corizon because of his

military duties. He thus placed Ripberger’s name and Smith’s

name on the same line for the position Smith had held in the

Outside Dorm to indicate that if Smith did not apply the slot

would be given to Ripberger. Because it was Smith’s caseload,

when he did apply for the position, it was given to him.

Seen in this light, the undisputed fact that Ripberger was

more qualified than Smith does not raise an inference of sex
12 No. 13-2070

discrimination. Instead, it shows that Corizon valued continuity of care over experience. Ripberger lists many reasons why

she believes this is a poor approach to substance abuse counseling and why she would have been a superior choice for the

position. But none of her reasons cast doubt on the legitimacy

of Corizon’s assertion that it hired Smith to fill the open

position in the Outside Dorm because he had previously been

working for IDOC in that position. See Cung Hnin v. TOA

(USA), LLC, 751 F.3d 499, 506 (7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff may

establish pretext with evidence that employer’s proffered

reason is phony or a lie for the real reason). As we have stated

repeatedly, it is not our province to sit as a super-personnel

department evaluating the wisdom of an employer’s staffing

decisions. E.g., Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., — F.3d. — 2014 WL

6467287 at *6 (7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2014); Silverman v. Bd. of Educ.,

637 F.3d 729, 738 (7th Cir. 2011) (ultimately irrelevant whether

employer’s reason was “wise, fair, or even correct” so long as

it was real reason for adverse employment action) (citation and

internal quotations omitted). 

Ripberger repeatedly emphasizes that at the time Smith

was hired he had less experience and also did not possess the

requisite certification for the position. Moreover, he never did

become certified. Corizon gave the substance abuse counselors

thirty days to pass the test for certification and licensing, but

Smith never met his obligation to do so. After several warn 2

The parties briefs do not illuminate the precise nature of the required 2

certification, but a memo in the record discusses Smith’s failure to “become

certified through CADAC.” Presumably this refers to the licensing and

(continued...)
No. 13-2070 13

ings, Smith was ultimately terminated the following year

(August 2011) on account of his failure to ever obtain the

required certification. Ripberger points to Smith’s later

termination as evidence of sex discrimination. But the fact that

in hindsight Ripberger may have been a better choice than

Smith does nothing to establish that he was hired over

Ripberger because she is a female. If anything, it may demonstrate Corizon’s short-sightedness in prioritizing continuity of

care over experience and certification, but as discussed above,

it is not our province to assess the wisdom of Corizon’s

personnel decisions. 

Ripberger also claims in a single sentence that there was a

pattern of sex discrimination, as evidenced by Orton-Bell’s

termination when she complained about sex discrimination

and the fact that Ripberger was not hired by Corizon after

supporting Orton-Bell. Not only is this argument waived

because it is perfunctory and undeveloped, Bass, 746 F.3d at

841 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014), there is no evidence in the record of a

“pattern” of sex discrimination, especially by Corizon. Corizon

had nothing to do with Orton-Bell’s termination by IDOC

based on the alleged affair with her male coworker. Although

the circumstances surrounding Orton-Bell’s termination may

be troubling, see Orton-Bell, 759 F.3d at 778 (remanding OrtonBell’s sex discrimination claim for further discovery into

IDOC’s more favorable treatment of her male coworker),

 (...continued) 2

certification requirements for “certified alcohol and drug counselors

(CADCs).” http://education-portal.com/cadc_degree.html.
14 No. 13-2070

Ripberger provides no information to support her conclusion

that there was a “pattern” of sex discrimination or that anyone

discriminated against her on the basis of sex.

And although Ripberger fails to explicitly argue her case

using the indirect McDonnell-Douglasframework, we note that

her sex discrimination claim fails under this approach as well.

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination

under the indirect method with evidence that (1) she is a

member of the protected class; (2) she was qualified for the

position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and

(4) similarly-situated employees outside of the protected class

received more favorable treatment. Martino v. W. & S. Fin. Grp.,

715 F.3d 195, 202 (7th Cir. 2013). The only disputed element

here is whether Ripberger suffered an adverse employment

action. Corizon argues that there was no adverse employment

action given that it offered her a potential position at either the

Miami or Putnamville institutions. Construing the facts in the

light most favorable to Ripberger, a jury could conclude that

she reasonably believed she was applying for a position at

Pendleton. In addition to being the location of her current job,

Pendleton was much closer to Ripberger’s home than either

Miami or Putnamville; thus, positions at either of those

facilities could reasonably be viewed as a material change in

the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment. See

Brewer v. Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ill., 479 F.3d 908, 915 (7th Cir.

2007) (reciting standard for adverse employment action).

Once Ripberger establishes a prima facie case, the burden

shifts to Corizon to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for its decision. As discussed above, Schoenradt

explained that after the Reformatory position was eliminated,
No. 13-2070 15

he decided to fill the six remaining positions with those

counselors already holding a caseload in the therapeutic

communities in which Corizon was hiring. Schoenradt stated

that although he believed Ripberger was a good employee, he

thought that continuity of care for both clients and counselors

tipped the scales in favor of hiring Smith. As the discussion

above makes clear, Ripberger has failed to cast suspicion on

this stated reason. The evidence in the record suggests that in

the rapid transition from IDOC to Corizon, Corizon sought to

minimize disruption wherever possible by retaining currently

qualified IDOC employees in the positions they already held.

Ripberger claims that staff at Pendleton were interchangeable

and that she could easily have moved between the Reformatory, the Outside Dorm, and the Community Industrial

Facility, something she had done in the past. Thus, the argument goes, it only makes sense that she should have been hired

in lieu of Smith, who was less qualified and less experienced.

But as compelling as her claim may be, it does not undercut the

legitimacy of Corizon’s explanation that it filled openings

when possible with those employees already working in those

positions. 

B. Age Discrimination

The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to

hire or otherwise discriminate against an individual “because

of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Ripberger was

59 in August 2010 and thus qualifies for protection under the

ADEA, which is limited to individuals forty and over. 29 U.S.C.

§ 631(a). As with her Title VII claims, she may avoid summary

judgment by providing either direct or circumstantial evidence

that would allow a reasonable juror to infer that her employer
16 No. 13-2070

acted for discriminatory reasons. Fleishman v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,

698 F.3d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 2012). In the case of the ADEA,

Ripberger must produce evidence from which a jury could

infer that her age “was a but-for cause of [her] termination.” Id.

at 604; see also Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176

(2009) (holding that under ADEA’s language prohibiting

discrimination “because of” age plaintiff must prove at trial

that age was but-for cause of adverse employment action). 

We need not belabor the various avenues for proving

discrimination under the direct and indirect method, because

Ripberger fails to point to any evidence that Corizon failed to

hire her on account of her age. She argues cursorily that the

evidence supporting her sex discrimination claim also establishes that Corizon’s stated reason for refusing to hire her was

a pretext for age discrimination. Specifically, she points out

that Corizon hired younger less-qualified employees who

failed to pass the test for certification and license within the

required 30-day time frame given by Corizon. But as discussed

above, this evidence does not establish that Corizon sought to

avoid hiring older employees or that it passed over Ripberger

because of her age. Instead, it simply reaffirms that it chose

employees with active caseloads in the Correctional Industrial

Facility and the Outside Dorm because those were the positions it needed to fill. And although Ripberger again points out

that she was more qualified than those hired and could have

easily worked in either of those settings as she had done in the

past, there is no evidence that her caseload at the time included

inmates from either area, whereas all of the other substance

abuse counselors hired did counsel inmates in the Correctional

Industrial Facility and the Outside Dorm. 
No. 13-2070 17

Ripberger points to no other evidence in the record that

Schoenradt or any other decisionmaker harbored any discriminatory animus based on age. Indeed, the notion that

Schoenradt desired to eliminate Ripberger because of her age

is unlikely given that he had hired Ripbergerto return to work

at Pendleton just two years before when she was 57 years old.3

See Rand v. CF Indus., Inc., 42 F.3d 1139, 1147 (7th Cir. 1994) (“It

seems rather suspect to claim that the company that hired him

at age 47 ‘had suddenly developed an aversion to older people’

two years later.”) (quoting Lowe v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 963

F.2d 173, 174-75 (8th Cir. 1992)). Any inference of age discrimination is further undercut by the fact that of the six employees

Corizon hired at Pendleton, three were relatively close to

Ripberger’s age: Anna Sasin was 51, Diane Diggins was 57, and

Avery Thomas was over 60. Cf. O’Connor v. Consol. Coin

Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312-13 (1996) (no inference of age

discrimination can be drawn from the replacement of one

worker with another worker insignificantly younger). Simply

put, Ripberger has presented no evidence that her age motivated Corizon’s decision not to hire her. 

C. Retaliation

That leaves Ripberger’s Title VII retaliation claim, which

requires her to demonstrate that “the desire to retaliate was the

but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” Univ. of

Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2528 (2013);

When Ripberger returned to work in 2008, she was interviewed by

3

Schoenradt and Kathy Griffin. She testified that although she wasuncertain

who decided to hire her, it “was probably the two of them together,” with

the superintendent giving the final approval. 
18 No. 13-2070

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). She maintains that she has presented

sufficient evidence of retaliation under both the direct and

indirect method as well as under the totality of the evidence.

Under the direct method, Ripberger must demonstrate (1) that

she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) that her

employer took an adverse employment action against her; and

(3) that the protected activity and the adverse employment

action are causally connected. Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum Int’l.,

LLC, 766 F.3d 747, 754 (7th Cir. 2014). As with sex and age

discrimination, retaliatory motive may be established through

circumstantial evidence such as suspicious timing, ambiguous

statements, evidence that the stated reasonforthe employment

decision is pretextual and “other bits and pieces from which an

inference of discriminatory intent might be drawn.” See Harper

v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297, 307 (7th Cir. 2012) (citation

and internal quotations omitted); see also Langenbach v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 761 F.3d 792, 800 (7th Cir. 2014).

It is undisputed that Ripberger engaged in statutorily

protected activity by assisting Orton-Bell with her discrimination complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (prohibiting employer retaliation because an employee has opposed an

unlawful employment practice or has “testified, assisted, or

participated in any manner” in a Title VII “investigation,

proceeding, or hearing”). And as discussed above, she has also

demonstrated that she suffered an adverse employment action

when Corizon did not offer her a position at Pendleton. The

only remaining question then is whether Ripberger has shown

a causal connection between her support of Orton-Bell and

Corizon’s decision. 
No. 13-2070 19

Ripberger provides a laundry list of evidence that she

believes demonstrates the required causal connection. First is

her exchange with Finnan where she told him she was feeling

on the “short end of the stick” and he replied that there “might

be a reason for that.” Although she claims that she was

referring to her support for Orton-Bell, there is no evidence

that Finnan knew what Ripberger meant by her remark. (It is

certainly possible that Finnan assumed Ripberger was referring

to the fact that her position in the Reformatory was being

eliminated, although that would be a question for the jury to

decide.) And although Finnan’s statement may be ambiguous,

it does little to support an inference of retaliation. Circumstantial evidence “must point directly to a discriminatory reason

for the employer’s action,” Mullin v. Temco Mach., Inc., 732 F.3d

772, 777 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted), and this unexplained conversation falls short of that

standard. 

More importantly, Ripberger has not established that

Finnan had any say in Corizon’s hiring decisions. It is clear

from the evidence that Schoenradt made the hiring decisions

for Corizon, and Ripberger has provided nothing beyond her

ownspeculation that Finnan had some “say so” in the decisionmaking. See Dorsey v. Morgan Stanley, 507 F.3d 624, 628 (7th Cir.

2007) (plaintiff’s evidence that allegedly biased complex

manager played role in adverse decision made by regional

manager was “simply too speculative” to establish involvement). 

Given Ripberger’s failure to prove Finnan was involved in

the decision, it is irrelevant that he may have disapproved of

her involvement in Orton-Bell’s claim. Likewise, the fact that
20 No. 13-2070

Finnan spoke with Schoenradt in private on the day the

privatization was announced does not create an inference that

he instructed Schoenradt not to hire Ripberger or otherwise

became involved in the hiring process. And the fact that he was

surprised and irritated to see her at Orton-Bell’s final hearing

on August 19 does not support an inference of retaliation, even

when taken together with the fact that she later received a call

from the Corizon recruiter informing her that she would not be

hired back into a position at Pendleton. Whatever probative

value these facts may have as to Finnan’s thoughts about

Ripberger supporting Orton-Bell, they tell us nothing about

whether he was a decisionmaker in Corizon’s hiring process.

And without that critical link, there is no inference of retaliation to be drawn from Ripberger’s evidence regarding Finnan.

In his affidavit, Schoenradt stated that at “no time while

making the hiring and placement decisions did I consider

Ripberger’s participation in a grievance filed by her former

IDOC supervisor, Connie Orton-Bell, against IDOC.” None of

Ripberger’s evidence about Finnan calls Schoenradt’s affirmation into question, and without evidence of Finnan’s input into

the decision Ripberger cannot show causation. See Willis v.

Marion Cnty. Auditor’s Office, 118 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 1997)

(affirming judgment as a matter of law where plaintiff presented no evidence that biased employees influenced employer’s decision to discharge plaintiff); see also SchandelmeierBartels v. Chi. Park Dist., 634 F.3d 372, 379-81 (7th Cir. 2011)

(collecting cases and discussing what level of involvement in

the decision by a biased non-decisionmaker is necessary to

impute liability to employer for that employee’s bias).
No. 13-2070 21

Ripberger also claims an inference of retaliation can be

drawn from a conversation she had with Corizon employee

Mary Mansfield. On Ripberger’s last day (August 31, 2010),

Mansfield took her to lunch. During lunch, Mansfield asked

Ripberger whether she thought Corizon had not hired her

because she had helped Orton-Bell with her complaint against

IDOC. Ripberger said that yes, she did think that was the

reason, and Ripberger testified that Mansfield replied, “I do

too.” Mansfield’s speculation as to why Ripberger was not

hired is exactly that—speculation. Not only does this fall short

of creating an inference of unlawful retaliation, it too is

irrelevant without evidence that Mansfield played some role in

the hiring decision or had some other inside information that

would lend credibility to her opinion as to why Ripberger was

not hired. Cf. Metzger v. Ill. State Police, 519 F.3d 677, 682 (7th

Cir. 2008). Ripberger has no such evidence, and Mansfield

herself testified that she had no role in deciding which IDOC

employees were offered employment by Corizon and did not

know how that decision was made. 

Ripberger has a lengthy list of other evidence that she

claims shows retaliation: that she was not told where her

interview with Corizon would be; that her interview was

shorter than that of other IDOC employees; that her name

appeared on Schoenradt’s “good to go” list; that she was not

listed as one of the few “do not hire” individuals; and that

there existed what she alleges was a “pattern of retaliation”

against herself and Orton-Bell. Whether consideredtogether or

in isolation, none of these facts establish a causal link between

her support of Orton-Bell and Corizon’s decision not to hire

her. 
22 No. 13-2070

First, she offers no evidence as to who should have informed her about the interview, nor did she actually miss the

interview. The fact that she was unsure at some point where

the interview would be held is largely irrelevant. Similarly, the

interviews were cursory in nature because Corizon sought

simply to ascertain which IDOC employees were interested in

retaining their current positions. Ripberger offers no evidence

to undercut this claim, nor does she point to testimony from

any other employees stating that they received more thorough

or substantive interviews than she did. And the fact that she

was listed on Schoenradt’s list as “good to go” does nothing to

prove Corizon retaliated against her: it simply demonstrates

that he believed she was fully qualified to remain in her

position—a position that, regrettably, was eliminated when

Corizon took over. Indeed, presumably Schoenradt continued

to believe Ripberger was a valuable employee; otherwise it

seems unlikely that Corizon would offer her one of the two

available positions at neighboring facilities. Finally, Ripberger

points to no evidence to support the alleged “pattern of

retaliation” by Corizon, a pattern that would be particularly

difficult to prove in any event given that IDOC, and not

Corizon, terminated Orton-Bell.

That leaves Ripberger’s reliance on the temporal proximity

between her appearance at Orton-Bell’s final hearing and the

call she received later that day from the Corizon recruiter

informing her that she would not be offered a position at

Pendleton. But she has no evidence that the call did not fit

within the general timing of Corizon’s hiring process or was

otherwise suspicious. There is also no evidence that Finnan,

whom Ripberger saw at the hearing, communicated that day
No. 13-2070 23

with anyone involved in the hiring decision. Thus, Ripberger

has nothing to establish retaliation beyond the suspicious

timing itself. But it is well established that “mere temporal

proximity between [the statutorily protected activity] and the

action alleged to have been taken in retaliation for that [activity] will rarely be sufficient in and of itself to create a triable

issue.” Stone v. City of Indianapolis Pub. Utils. Div., 281 F.3d 640,

644 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Sauzek v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc.,

202 F.3d 913, 918 (7th Cir.2000) (“Speculation based on suspicious timing alone, however, does not support a reasonable

inference of retaliation; instead, plaintiffs must produce facts

which somehow tie the adverse decision to the plaintiffs’

protected actions.”). Given the lack of evidence suggesting that

the timing of the phone call was anything but coincidental, this

is not the rare case where temporal proximity alone may

suffice to suggest illegitimate motive. 

Ripberger’s claim faresno better under the indirect method.

Ripberger may establish a prima facie case of retaliation by

showing that she (1) engaged in statutorily protected activity;

(2) met her employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) suffered an

adverse employment action; and (4) was treated less favorably

than similarly situated employees who did not engage in

protected activity. Moultrie, 766 F.3d at 755. Ripberger engaged

in statutorily protected activity by helping Orton-Bell file her

discrimination complaint and attending her hearings as a silent

witness. The parties agree that Ripberger was meeting her

employer’s expectations and Ripberger has also shown that

other IDOC counselors who did not engage in statutorily

protected activity were hired back into their positions by
24 No. 13-2070

Corizon. Finally, we can assume that Corizon’s failure to offer

her a position at Pendleton constitutes an adverse job action. 

As should be readily apparent by now, Corizon has offered

a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for its decision not to hire

Ripberger, andnothing in her evidence suggests that Corizon’s

stated reason—ensuring a seamless transition and maintaining

continuity of care with both the offenders and the counselors—is unworthy of belief. Thus, Corizon is entitled to summary judgment on Ripberger’s retaliation claim as well.

III.

As the district court noted, Ripberger was a qualified

substance abuse counselor who was the unfortunate victim of

a reduced workforce at the Pendleton facility when IDOC

privatized its substance abuse counseling program. Regardless

of how the evidence is viewed, it is simply insufficient to

demonstrate any unlawfulmotivation behind Corizon’s failure

to hire her. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court

granting summary judgment to Corizon.