W e g ran t e d t he p arties’ m otio n to w aiv e or al arg u m en t, so  the case is sub m itted on the b riefs.



## 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. 07

- 3772 G EOR GE J A CK S ON, 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 . 06 C3654

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judg e.
S UB MI TT ED N OVE MBE R 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 13, 2009 

Befo re K ANN E , E VANS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu it Judge

. Ge o r g e J ac k so n c o nt en ds th atthe Ci tyo fChi ca g o di sc r i m i na te d a g ains t hi m b y de ny i ng him tw o prom otions h e sou gh t in 2004. Th e d istri ct cou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe Cityand J acks on appeal s.2 N o. 07

- 3772 J acks on, an Afr i can- A m er i can m an i n hi s fi fti es, beg an hi s e m plo ym ent with the Cityo fChica go i n 198 7 a s a car penteri n the Publi c W or ks Dep ar tm ent. S i nce Augus t 20 03 he ha s be ena f o r eman ofc ar pen te r s i n the D epart m ent o fTra nsport ati on. I n 200 4, the Citypost ed an announcem ent fortwo posi ti ons as gener alf or em an o f gener altr ades

— one i n the Dep ar tm ent o fTran spor tat i on an d the o th eri n the De par tmento fGe ne r al Se r vi ce s. The g en er alf o r eman o fg en er alt r ade s co o rd in at es the acti vi ti es ofal l the tr ade uni ons on a gi ven proj ect. J ack son and a m an nam ed M i chaelBl ake appli ed f or the pos i ti on i n the Dep ar tm ent o fTra n sp or tat i on. W hen the j ob w as poste d, J acks on had 30 ye ar s o fexper i ence as a j ourne ym an car penter
. Pri or to hi s em plo ym ent with th e Ci ty, Bl ak e wor k ed ata c o ns truct i o n c om pan y, b eg i nni ng as a l aborer/a pp re nti ce b ut bec om i ng a j ourne ym an car penterthr ough the sponso rs hi p ofthe car penter s’ un ion. I n th e interview f or the j ob, th e can d idat es w ere as ke d ab ou t t h eir ex p er ien c e e st im at in g t h e m at er ials and m anpow erneeded to co m ple te a proj ect. Bl ake had relev an t ex per i en ce , a nd J ac k so n a ckno wl edg ed to the in te rv iew er s t h at h e d id n ot . In fac t, th ou gh it ap p ar en tly did notco m e up at the inter vi ew , J acks on had es ti m ate d j obs wh i l e work i ng f orthe Ch i cago H ousi ng Au thor i ty. Bec au se w r i tt enc o m m uni ca ti o ns s k i l l s ar e i m po r ta nt f or the posi ti on o fge nera l f or em an, the j ob sel ecti on proce ss al so i nvol ved a tes t o ftho se ski l l s. Each candi date w ro te a nar ra ti ve answ erdescr ibi ng how he would r epl ace a d eck. Th ere also w ere qu estions , f or w h ich there w ere obj ectively correct answ ers, testin g each can d idat e’sN o. 07

- 3772 3 abi l i ty to re ad and i nterp ret dra w i ngs a nd bl uepri nts. N ume r i c a l s c o r e s o n a 5
. 0 s c a l e we r e a s s i g n e d t o t he answ er s: Bl ake’ s s cor e was a near - perfect 4. 75 and Ja ckson’ s was 2. 25. Bl ake go t the j ob. The s e c o nd p o s i t i o n, g e ne r a l f o r e mano fg e ne r a l t r ades i n the Dep ar tm ent o fGenera l S er vi ces, drew seve ra l c an d id at es inc lu d in g Ja c ks on , a m an n am ed K ev in O ’G or m an , a n d a n u m b er of ot h er s fo r th e s p ot . Th is tim e, as p a r t of th e interview proc ess, cand idat es w ere re quir ed to co m ple te a w ri tte n w or k s am ple , wh i ch incl ud ed questi ons re l ati ng to car pentrysk i l l s a s wel l as per so nnel m at te r s th ata g en er alf o r eman woul d b e ex pected to handle

. A l l the candidate s e xcep t J acks on subm i tte d the s am ple

. J acks on denies t hat ca nd i dates w er e a ske d to com ple te a w ri tte n w or k s am ple

. H e s ays th at th e C ity “has p r o d u c e d n o eviden ce th at a w ork sa m pl e wa s g i v e n a s p a r to fth e i n t e r v i e w p r o c e s s . ” The City, o n the othe r hand , subm i tte d an affi davi t fro m D a v i d D o n o v a n, w h o a tth e t i me w a s th e a s s i s t a n tc o mm i ssi oner, Bureau o fTra des & Engi neer i ng, in the Departm en t of G en eral Servi ces. H e w as o n e o f th e interview ers f orthe posi ti on. Donovan sai d t h at al l the candidate s c o mpl e t e d the s a mpl e e xc e ptf o r J a c k s o n, wh o r e fus e d. O’ Gor m anr ec ei ve d the hi g he stc o m bine d s co r e o n the wo r ks a mpl e a nd the i nt e r v i e w. He wa s th e o ne p r o mot e d. J acks on fi l ed thi s ca se al l eging r ace and age disc ri m i nati on i n vi ol ati on ofT i tl e VIIof the Ci vi l Ri ghts A ct o f19 64, 42 U

. S. C. § 2 000e

- 5( f ) , and the A ge Disc ri m i nati on in Em pl o y m en t Act, 2 9 U. S

. C. § 62 6( c)

. H e appe al s th e g r an t ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe C ity o n the Ti tl e VI Ir ace4 N o. 07

- 3772 d iscrim ination claim only. W e review a gran t of su m m ary j ud gm ent de no vo . Harre ll v. U
. S. P ostal Service, 44 5 F

. 3d 913 (7th Cir. 2006). J acks on has pro ceed ed und erthe i nd i re ct m etho d of pr o o fs eto uti n M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 41 1 U. S

. 7 9 2 ( 1 9 7 3 )

. T o s u c c e e d , h e mu s tf i r s te s t a b l i s h a p r i ma f aci e ca se ofdi scr i m i nati on. I fhe doe s s o, the Citym ust ar ti cul at e a l eg i ti m at e, no ndi sc r i m i na to r y r ea so n f o r the adv er se e m pl o y m ent act i o n. I fthe Ci tys ucc ee ds, the burd en o f p ro du cti on s hi fts backto J acks on t o prove that th e st at ed r ea so n f o r the a dve r se a ct i o n was pr et ex tu al

. To es t a b l i s h a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f r a c e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n a f ai l ure to pr om ot e cl ai m , J acks on m ust e stabl i sh, by a p re p o nd eran ce of eviden ce, that h e is a m em ber of a prot ecte d cl ass ; he i s q u alifi ed f orthe posi ti on; he was rej ecte d fo r th e p osi ti on; and the posi ti on was gi ven t o a pe rs on o utsi de the prot ecte d cl ass wh o w as si m i l ar l y o r les s qu alifi e d t h a n h e. Jor dan v. Ci ty of Gary, Ind. , 39 6 F. 3 d 8 2 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. I fthe p e r s o n who g o tthe pro m oti on was bet terqual i fi ed, the pla i nti ff’ s ca se f ai l s. U l ti m ate l y, thi s ca se ri ses o r f al l s o n the i ssue ofsi m i l ar qua l i fi cations
. J ac k so n c anno t pr ev ai l o n a c l ai m tha t he w as sim il ar l y o r bett erqual i fi ed to ei therBl ake o r O’Gorm an. But, he s ays , theyhad an advanta ge i n that th e y w ere given training op p ortu nities w hich w ere den i ed to hi m a s a r es ul t o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. The tr ai ni ng o pp or tuni ti es , J acks on a rgues, i nvol ve an empl o y ee ’ s be i ngc ho sent o “ ac t up. ” W ha t th atmean s i s that a n em p loy ee is gi ven a chance to fi l l a hi gher posi t i o n, o ft e n s up e r v i s o r y, f o r s o me pe r i o d o ft i m e.N o. 07

- 3772 5

W e ar e, ofc ou rs e, awar e thatthe dec i s i on i n L edbette rhas 1 s pa rk e d s i gn i fi c a ntc on t r ov e r s y wi th c r i t i c s vo wi ng l e gi s l a t i ve (co n tin u ed ...) Through the act i ng- up proc es s the em plo yee r ecei ves tr ai ni ng and experi ence that he would noto ther w i se have. J acks on sa ys that the Ci ty disc ri m i nated ag ai nst hi m o n the b as i s o fr ac e by no t al l o wi ng hi m t o a ctup an d thus pu t hi m at a disa dvantage i n the prom oti on p ro c ess . W er e i t no t for thi s di scr i m i nati on, he s ays he woul d have qua l i fi ca ti o ns si m i l art o tho se o fBl ak e an d O’ Gor m an . The ar gum ent has so m e s urf ace appeal, but i t ca nnot be s us t a i ne d. I n or der t o chal l enge an em plo ym ent pr acti ce under Ti tl e VI I, the em p loyee mustfi r stfi l e a ch ar g e wi ththe Equa l Em pl o y m en t Oppo r tu ni tyCom m i ss i o n. De pen di ng on the st ate i n w hi ch the charg e is b rought, i t m ust be filed w ith in 18 0 o r 30 0 d ay s. 42 U .S.C . § 20 00 e-5 (e)(1 ). In th i s ca se , the l i m i t i s 30 0 day s. T he “ ac ting - up” de ci si o ns we r e n o tp a r t o fJ a c k s o n ’ s c h a r g e b e f o r e th e E q u a l E mplo ym ent Op portunity C om m i ssi on and , in fa ct, could not have been because theyfel l o utsi de the 300- day ti m e l i m i t. J acks on’ s theor y is th at the a cti ng- up cl ai m s were not i nd e pe nd e ntc l a i ms tha th a d t o b e p r e sente d i n a n EEO C ch arg e , b ut rather w ere offered to sup p ort his prim ary cl ai m r ega rdi ng di scr i m i nati on i n the prom otion pro cess . This theo ryhas been f or ecl ose d by the S up re m e C ourta n um ber of ti m es, re centl y and m ost em phati cal ly in Le db e t t e rv. Goodye arTire& Rub b e rCo. , 12 7 S

. Ct. 21 62 (2007). 16 N o. 07

- 3772

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 a ct io n to re v er se its h o ld in g . S eeww w. the b u sines s l edge r. c om and the art ic le poste d there by Tim M cLean on J uly 24, 2007. U ntil the 197 0s, alm ost all “fligh t atten d an ts” (a po lit i c a l ly 2 corre ct, gender- neutral te rm ) w ere w om en, and they w ere, w ith few ex ce p tio n s, ca lle d “s te w a rd es se s.” The l i ne o fc as es c ul m i na ti ng i n Led betterbeg i ns with U ni t e d AirLin e s , Inc
. v. Evans , 431 U

. S. 55 3 ( 1977 ) , wh er e a fem al e fl i ght a tte nd ant was f or ced to r esi gn be cause 2 the a i rl i ne di d not e m plo y m a rriedfli g h t a tt en d an ts , a pract i ce no w l ong, and w i sel y, abandoned. M s. Evans w as re hi re d som e y ear s l ate r, but she was tr eat ed as a new em plo yee f orse ni or i ty purposes. S he sue d, ar gui ng tha t the a i rl i ne’ s r efusalto gi ve her cr edi t forpri orse rv i ce gave “pre sent effect to [ i ts] past i l l ega l acta nd ther eby p e r p e t u a t e [ d ] th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o ff o rb i d d e n d i s c r i mi na ti o n. ” At 5 57
. The Co ur t r ej ec te d he r a r g um en t, s ay i ng that the e ar l i erdi scr i m i nati on di d not co ns tit ute a pr es en t vi o l at i o n. S i m i l ar l y, i n N at i onal Rai l r oad Pass e nge rCorp. v . M organ , 53 6 U. S

. 1 01 ( 20 02 ) , the Co ur t ex pl aine d tha t th e te rm “em plo ym ent pr acti ce” gener al l y r efer s t o a “dis cre te act orsingl e ‘ occur re nce’ ” t aking pl ace at a par ti cul arti m e. A t 1 10- 11. Exam ple s o fsuc h di scr ete act s a re “t er m i nati on, f ai l ure to prom ote , d eni alo ftr ansfer, [ and] r efusal to hi re . ” At 114. I n Led better, the Court extend ed t h e pr i nci ple to cl ai m s i nv o l vingdi sc r i m i na ti o n in pa y . The di ss en tN o. 07

- 3772 7

ar gued that the extensi on to pay d i scr i m i nati on went a s tep to o fa r; th at itw as “ a c ra m p ed in te rp re ta tio n of T itle V II. ” The dis sent l ooke d to Bazemorev. Fr i day, 47 8 U.S

. 38 5 ( 1986 ) , wh i ch i nvol ved a si tuati on wh er e payc hecks we re is s ue d p ur s ua ntt o p a s tdi s c r i mi na t o r y p a y s c he dule s

— one f orwh i tes , one f or A f ri can- A m er i cans. The du al pay sc hedu l es w er e abandone d , but pay di spari ti es at tr ibut ab l e to the o l d dua l pa y s chedul es pe r si st ed. The B a z em o reCo ur t f o und thatthe pa stdi sc r i m i na ti o n mea nt that the e m plo yerenga ged i n i ntenti onaldi scr i m i nati on each t i m e i t i ssued a paycheck i n the prese nt. Bu t r atherthan e x tendi ng the B a z em o repr i nc i pl e, the m aj o r i tyi n Led betterr el i ed o n Evans a nd M organ . Ledbette r w as a sa l a rie d em p loy ee ata G oo d ye ar p lan t w h er e a ll such em plo yee s were gi ven o r denie d pay r ai ses bas ed on perf or m ance evaluati ons com ple ted by su p er vi sor s. Sh e a lleg ed th at sh e w as g i ve n su b -p ar ev alu at ion s in the pastbec ause ofherse x and that h er p ay had not in c re as ed as m u c h as it w ou ld h av e h ad sh e b ee n fairly eval uated. The actual deni al s o fpay ra i se s ( base d on all eged discrim inatory p erform an ce eva luations ) w ere outsi de the l i m i ta tions peri od, but she c l ai m ed that paychecks i ssued duri ng the char gi ng per i od w er e s epara te a c t s o fd i s c r i mi n a t i o n . T h e Co ur tr ej e c t e d h e r c l a i m, re affi rm i ng the Evans l i ne o fc a s e s : a “ ne w v i o l a t i on does not occur, a nd a new char gi ng per i od does not com m ence, upon the occu rre nce o fsubse quent nondis

cr i m inat o r y a ct s th ate nt ai l a dve r se e ffec ts r es ul ting f ro m the past di scr i m i nati on. ” At 2169

. E ven i f Evans a nd M organ left an y d o u b t, Led better forecloses J acks on’s claim

. Th e acting -up de cisions he re8 N o. 07

- 3772

occur re d outsi de the 300- day chargi ng p er i od. Jack son w as n otsim ilar ly q u alifie d to B lak e, es p ec ially co n sid er in g h is l o w sc o r e o n the ob j ecti ve pr o m o ti o n t es t. Norwas he s i mi l a r t o O’ Go r manwh o , l i k e o the r a ppl i c a nt s e xc e pt J ac k so n, s ubmi tt ed a wri tt enwor ks ampl e. The a ct in g - up deci si ons w er e di scr ete a c ts w hi ch co uld be co nsi dered o n l y i fth e y o c c u r r e d w i th i n th e a p p r o p r i a t e t i me p er iod co ve re d by h is E E O C ch ar ge . I t’s tru e t h at, in cer tai n si tuati ons, unti m el y a cti ons can b e u sed as “ba ckgr ou n d ev id en c e” to su p p or t a cla im
. Evans , M organ , a nd Fis cherv . A vana de, Inc. , 51 9 F.3d 39 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). M organ al l ows i ts use in cer tai n host i l e workenv iro nm ent c ase s. B ut i ts us e here as “b ackg roun d eviden ce” w o u ld requ ire a m in i-tr ial: W h at w er e t h e a va ilab le “ ac tin g-u p ” p os iti ons? W ho a pp l i ed? W hat were the qual i fi cati ons oftho se who wer e ac ce pte d? H o w di d th ey co m par e to J ac k so n? W hat ski l l s w er e l ear ned orenhanced byge tting a chance to “actup”? H ow w oul d those ski l l s have be tte r enhanced Jackson ’s chan ces of getting th e po siti ons that w ere gi ven t o Blak e a nd O’Gor m an? These a re j ust a few o f the i ssue s that would have to be consi dered to ev en m ak e th e al l eg ed “b ac k g r o und e vi den ce ” rele va ntt o the tw o posi ti ons J acks on s ought but di dn ’ t g et i n 200 4. F i n a l l y, a s th e C o u r t s a i d i n M o rgan , at11 3, “di scr ete disc ri m i nator y a cts ar e not acti onabl e i f ti m e bar re d, eve n w hen theyar e r el at ed t o acts al l ege d i n ti m el y fi l ed charg es. Each dis cre te disc ri m i na to ry actst ar ts a new cl ock f or fi l i ng charg es al l eging that act. ” A n ew vi ol ati o n do es no t o cc ur“ upo n the o cc ur r en ce o fs ubs eque nt nondisc ri m i nator y a cts that entai l adver se effects r esul ti ng fro m the past di scr i m i nati on. ” Led better, at21 69.N o. 07

- 3772 9 A c c or d in gly , th e jud gm en t o f t h e d ist ric t c ou rtis A F FIRMED .

1- 13- 09