## I n t he



# U n ited S ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls

F o r th e S e v e n th C ircu it

____________ N o. 07

- 1275 V ALERIE T. F I LA R, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. B OARD O F E DUC ATI ON O F T HE C IT Y OF C HI CAGO , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

____________ App eal fro m the United S t ates Di stric tC ou rt fo r the N orthernDi stric tof I llinoi s, E astern Div isi on. No . 04 C4679— Ch arl es R. N orgle , Judg e.

____________ A RGUED J AN UA RY 25, 2 0 0 8 —D ECI DE D M AY 22, 2008

____________ Befo re F LA UM , R OV NER, a nd S YKES , C ircu it Judges . F LA UM , Cir cu i t Judg e . Va l er i e T. F il ar f o r m er l y t au g ht as an unt enured, full

- t i m e tea cher i n the Pol i sh bi l i ngual educati o n de pa r t men ta tthe Ed wi n G. F o r e man Hi gh Scho oli n Ch ica go . I n 199 9, the Boar d ofEdu cat i on o f the Ci ty o fChica go, then k n own as the Chic ago S chool R eform Boa rd , ap p roved a dec isi on by Forem an ’s pri nci pal t o change Fi l ar ’ s st at us fro m a full

- t i m e tea c h er atFo re m an t o a s ubst i t ut e t eacher wh o w oul d fi l l vacan cies i n other C hicag o p ub li c sch ools as they arose. Fi lar, w ho was 69 atthe t i m e, o bj ect ed t o the deci si on f or at2 N o. 07

- 1275 l eas ttw o re aso ns. I n th e firstpl ace, she suspect ed that For em an’ s princi p al had del iber at el y r et ai ned younger tea c h er s in the bilin gu al p ro gr am a t h er ex p en se . I n add i t i on, Fi l ar ’ s ost eoa rthri t i s a nd depend ence on publ i c t r an spo r t ati o n made g et t i ngt o the c it y’s v ar i o us schoo l s diffi cul t , and the Board denie d he r re quest that she o nl y b e a ssi gned t o schoo l s thatwere eas i l y a ccessed fro m bus s t ops. Thi s l aw sui tf ol l owed , al l egi ng ag e di sc r i mi n a t i o n a n d th a tth e B o a r d f a i l e d t o r e a s o n a b l y a c c o mm o dat e F i l ar ’ s di sabi l i ty . The di str i ctc o ur tg r an t ed the Board’ s m ot i ons f or sum m ar y j ud gm ento n both cl ai m s, a n d th i s a p p e a l f o l l o we d

. F o r th e r e as o ns s e to u tb e l o w, w e r eve rs e the di st ri ctco urt ’s gr an to fsum m ar y j ud gm en twi th r es p ec tt o the a g e di sc r i m i na t i o n c l ai m b ut a f fi r m w i th r e s p e c tt o F i l a r ’ s d i s a b i l i ty c l a i m.
I . B a c kg r o und Fi l ar ’ s cl ai m s st em in la rg e m eas ure fro m al l ega t i ons that th e p rin c ip al of F or em an H igh S c h oo l m ad e q u es tion ab le perso nnel deci si ons that re su l t ed i n her o ust er fro m F o r e m a n . U n d e r s t a n d i n g th e s e a l l e g a t i o n s r e q u i r e s s o me bac kg ro und o n I l l i noi s’ s bi l i ngual educat i on pro gr am an d the ( el ab o r at e) mech an i cs o fa pr i nc ipal’s r el ati o nshi p w i th the t eacher s i n her scho ol

. I l l i n ois la w r equi re s th e Sta te’s sc h oo l d istric ts to es tab lish p ro gr am s o f tran sit i o na l b i l i ng ua l e duca t i o n f o r stude nt s o fl i m i t ed Eng l i sh

speaki ng ab i l i ty. I LC S §§ 5/14C- 1, C-3
. To s t affthese prog ra m s, scho oldi st ri cts off er a t ra nsi t i onalbi l i ngual tea c h in g c er tifica te to q u alifie d ind ivid u als p r o f i c ien t in both Engli sh and a f or ei gn l anguage , k now n as a Type 2 9 cer t i fi cat e. I LC S § 5 /14C-8

. The Type 29 c er ti fi cat e i s a b rid ge ce rti f i c a tion ; t ea c h er s c an teac h stu d en ts w ith l i m i t ed Eng l i shs k i l l s whi l e wor k i ng f o r a st an dar d t ea ch

-N o. 07

- 1275 3 i ng ce rt i fi cat e, wh i ch for se condaryscho ol s l i ke For em an is c alle d a T yp e 0 9 c er tifica te. Id. ; se e generallyI LL . A D M IN . C ODE t i t
. 23, § 25. 90 ( 2008 ) ( cont ai ni ng curr entq u alifica

t i o ns )

. Onc e a t ea ch er ha s at t ai ne d the st an dar d t ea ch i ng c er tifica te, sh e h as to ob tain bo th a b ilin gu al “ ap p r o va l,” whi ch a t t es t s t o he r a bi l i ty t o pro vi de a b i l i ng ua l e duca t i o n, and “endors em ent s, ” w h ich ar e desc ri pto rs l i ke “M athem ati cs” or “R ead ing” that ind ic a te the sub j ect m att ers sh e is c om p ete n t t o tea c h

. See, e.g., I LL . A D M IN . C ODE t i t
. 23 , § 2 5. app. E ( l i st i ng r epres ent at i ve endors em ent s a s o f July 1, 2004). Even w i th the pro per cer t i fi cat i ons, a w oul d-be t eac her in Il lin ois m u st still ge t hire d , an d n o t a l l t e ac h in g p os it i ons ar e the sa m e. Publ i c sc hool s i n Chicag o em plo y s e v e r a l d i f f er e n tc a t e g o r i e s o ft e a c h e r , e a c h wi th i t s o wn m oniker an d l evel of j ob stabil ity . T h e m ost secu re are t enured t eacher s, w hom a pri nci pal can onl y r em ove f or “ca us e.” 105 IL C S 5/34 -84. Be low t en ure d t each ers are t e n u r e - t r a c ko r “ a p p o i n t e d ” t e a c h e r s w h o w o r kfu l l t i me w ith a part i cul ar cl ass ata speci fi c sc hool , and, as their nam e s ugges t s, can eve nt ual l y o bt ai n subst an ti alj ob secur i ty. There ar e a l so atl eas ttw o ki nd s o fnon- t enuret ra ck t eacher s: “ca dre” su b st i t ut e t eacher s m ove fro m sc h oo l t o s c h oo l to cov er tem p or ar y v ac an c ies on a d aily bas is; and full- ti m e basi s o r “assigne d ” su bsti tutes w ork at one sch ool fullti m e , just li ke t en ure -t rack teach ers onl y with l ess se ni or i ty a nd withoutthe pot ent i alj ob secur i ty. Princ ip als have w ide d iscret ion i n m oving a sch ool’ s teache rs fr om a full- ti m e basis p osit ion onto the t en ure t ra ck. B u t how m any full

- t i m e t eacher s a scho olcan empl o y i n a g i v e n y e a r d e r i v e s i n l a r g e me a s u r e fr o m the pr i nc i pal ’ s av ail abl e budg etf o r the s ch o o l y ea r . Am o ng4 N o. 07

- 1275 other thi ngs, the annual budgetfr om the Chic ago Boar d of Educa t i o n a nd the Budg etOffi ce l i st s ho w m an y po si t i o ns the Boar d w i l l fund i n a g i ven s choolyear fo r each sc ho o l pr o g r am. I n addi t i o n t o Bo ar d- funde d po si t i o n, the pr i nc i palma y a ls o ha ve a c er t ai n n um be r o ft ea ch i ng posi t i ons athi s schoolfunded bythe S t at e o fI l l i noi s. W hen th e s c h o ol d oe s n ot h av e e n ou gh fu n d ed p os ition s fo r all i t s t eacher s, the pri nci pal m ay have t o “dis pla ce” unfund ed tea c h er s; th at is, re c ate go riz e e ithe r ten u re -trac k o r fu llt i m e s ubst i t ut e t eachers as “cadre” subst i t ut es w ho m ust then fi l l vac anci es i n other ci ty s chool s a s they a ri se. W h en tha t ha p p e n s , th e p rin c ip al d isp lac es teac h er s in re ve rs e o rd er of se n iority . A les s s en ior fu ll-tim e b as is subst i t ut e i n a g i ven s ub j ecto r prog ra m wil l go bef or e a m or e s eni or o ne; and a t enure- t ra ck t eacher wil l notgo u n til th e p rin c ip al h as d isp lac ed a ll of the fu ll-tim e b as is subst i t ut es. A l though the pri nci pal posses ses subst ant i al author i ty t o m ake perso nnel deci si ons, i t ’ s n ot absol ut e. The pr i nc i palmustfi r stse nd a pe r so nne l r eq ue stt o the Bo ar d’ s H um an Re so ur ces De par t m en t
. The r e, s o m eo ne d ete rm i n es w h eth er the d ec isio n co m p lies w ith th e C h ica g o Te ache r s Uni o n’ s co l l ec t i ve b ar g ai ni nga g r ee m en t and w hether th e teacher has the r equi si t e ce rti fi cat i ons. Then, base d on these cri t er i a, H um an Reso urces ei ther appr o ve s o r de ni es the de ci si o n. Thi s ca se a r i se s fr o m the ev en t s i m m edi at el y b ef o r e an d aft er Fi l ar ’ s di sp lac em enti n 199 9. Fi l ar was bor n on J a nu a r y 1 1 , 19 3 0 i n Po l a nd

. I n 1 9 9 1 , s he r e c e i v e d h e r T y pe 29 ce rtifica tion an d , th e n ex t yea r, F o r e m an ’s p rin c ip al, Dr
. J o hn Gar ve y , hi red he r t o t ea ch Co m put er s i n the sc h oo l’s P olis h bilin gu al p ro gr am as a fu ll-tim e b as is subst i t ut e. N otl ong aft er he hir ed Fi l ar in 1992, Dr. Garve y d i s p l a c e d h e r , a l th o u g h a f t e r F i l a r fi l e d a g r i e v a n c e s heN o. 07

- 1275 5

w as soon r ei nst at ed. W hi l e F i l ar was fi ght i ng her di sp lacem en t in 1992 an d 1993, Dr. G arvey h ired tw o m ore tea c h er s fo r th e s c h oo l’s P oli s h b ilin gu al p ro gr am — P iotr M on ac o (b or n in 1 95 7) a n d K or n elia R yd b er g (b or n in 1 9 6 0 ) —b o th o f wh o m h a d T y p e 2 9 c e r t i fi c a t i o n s . I n S e pt embe r 1 99 7, F i l ar r ec eive d he r Ty pe 09 s t an dar d t ea ch i ng c e r t i fi c a t i o n w i th e nd o r s e me n t s i n A c c o u n t i n g a n d C o mpu t er s, and, a m onth l at er , sh e obt ai ned her bi l i ngual ap p ro va l. The p ar ties di spute exactl y when and how Dr. Garve y m ad e the det er m i nat i on, but at som e poi nt i n 1999 it becam e cl ear to h im thatthe dem and had fal l en so m ew h at for bilin gu al P olis h ed u c atio n d u e t o a d ec re as e in enro l l m ent
. I n the sc hoolye ar beg i nn in g 1998, Fo re m an had fi ve Board- fund ed posi t i ons f or the Pol i sh bi l i n gu al prog ra m ; f or the 1999 schoo l ye ar , i twould l ose o ne. W hat follo w ed w as a flu rry of p er so n n el d ec i s ion s th at w ou ld ch an g e the pr o g r am an d the e m pl o y m en tst atus o fthe t e a c h e r s . T wo s u c h d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t e d th e o th e r ful l

- t i me subst i t ut e t eacher s then in th e pr ogr am . On J uly23 , 19 99, Dr. Garve y s enta re questt o the Boar d thatM onaco be appoin t ed t o a t enure- t ra ck posi t i on. M onaco had re

cei ved hi s Type 0 9 ce rt i fi cat i on i n M ar ch 1999 , buthe ha d yett o re cei ve hi s bi l i ngual approv al

. A nd o n Se pte m ber 3, 1999 , two da y s a f t e r the s c ho o l y e a r b e g a n, Dr
. Ga rv ey senta sim ilar requestthatRydber g b e a pp oi nt ed t o a t enure- t ra ck posi t ion. Rydber g had o bt ai ned her Type 09 cer t i fi cat i on o n A ugust18 , 19 99, buta l so had yett o re c eiv e h er bilin gu al a p p ro va l. On Sept em ber 12 , 199 9, D r. Garve y then sl ot t ed a new t eacher i nt o the P olis h bi l i ngual pro gr am wh en he re qu ested that the Boa r d m o ve a t en ure -t rack teach er, He l e n a D a n i e l s k a ( b o r n i n 1 9 3 9 ) , i n t o th e p r o g r a m.6 N o. 07

- 1275 Daniel ska had her T yp e 0 9 ce rt i fi cat i on with an e nd or sem en ti n mathe m ati cs an d a Ty pe 29 c er t i fi ca t e wi th a P olis h -b ilin gu al e n d or se m en t. In m ov in g D an iels ka into the pro gr am , Dr. Garve y m ove d Fila r fro m a st at efunde d po si t i o n t o a Bo ar d- funde d po si t i o n a nd the n put D an iel ska into Fil ar’s ol d st ate- fun d ed pos it ion. T he Boa rd a p p r o v e d th e c h a n g e o n S e p t e mb e r 1 4
. F i n a l l y , o n S e p t e mber 15 , D r. Garve y hi re d Elai ne Guzm an as a t enure- t ra ck t eacher t o t each ESL Com pu t er s a tFo re m an. Guzm an ha d the certi fi cations nee d ed t o t e ach atelem en tary schoo l butneeded speci alper m i ssi on t o t each b ecause she di d n o ty e th a v e the T y pe 0 9 c e r t i fi c a t i o n t o t e a ch hi gh sc hoolstud ent s. As thi ng s st o o d o n S ept embe r 1 7, 1 99 9, F il ar w as the onl y full

- t i m e ba si s s u bst i t ut e i n the Pol i sh bi l i ngual prog ra m and she had m ove d fro m a st at e- fund ed posi t i on t o a Boar d-fund ed posi t i on. Thatsa m e day, Dr. Garv ey i nfo rm ed Fi l ar that he w as displ aci ng her t o the ca d re. Fol l owing her displ acem en t, Fi l ar r epor t ed t o the Of fi ce ofCulture and Language, the departm enti n Chicag o Pub l i c S c h o o l s th a ti s r e s p o n s ib l e f o r a d mi n i s t e r i n g b i l i ngu al p r o g ra m s. Fila r c laim s th at so m eo n e a t O C L told her t o re t urn t o For em an bec ause her posi t i on was not bei ng cl ose d. Fi l ar then r et urned t o Fore m an and on Se pt e mbe r 2 7 , 1 9 9 9 s he r e c e i v e d a s e c o nd l e t t e r fro m Dr
. Ga rvey st ati ngtha ts he was b eingdi spl ac ed t o the cadre. A f t er she re cei ved thi s s eco nd l et t er , Fi l ar r epor t ed t o the Boar d agai n and she was told t o re t urn t o For em an as a ca dre s ubst i t ut e. But w hen she arri ved, Dr. Garve y r efus ed t o ac ce pt he r as a ca dr e subs t i t ut e atForem an, ex pl aini ngl at er i n h i s depo si t i o n tha the was c o nce r ne d o ve r the b ad bl ood fr o m the di spl ac ementa nd th e p ote n tial d isr u p tive effe c t it m igh t h av e on th e s c h oo l.N o. 07

- 1275 7 Fi l ar then f i l ed a g ri evance chal l engi ng her di spl acem ent
. I n Decem ber 1 99 9, Dr. Garve y s ubm i t t ed a l et t er r eg ar di nghi s dec i si o n t o di spl ac e F i l ar . He s t ated tha the had disp l aced her bec ause “she w as the l eas tse ni or m embe r o fthe f ac ul ty i n the Po l i shBi l i ng ua l Pr o g r am” a nd th e “ d ec re as e in en ro llm en t in th e Po lish p ro gr am n ec es sitated a decrea se i n the st aff

. M s. Fi l ar w as the onl y [fullt i m e ba si s s ubst i t ut e] l efti n the Pol i sh Bi l i ngual p ro gr am at th is tim e a n d w as d isp lac ed for th at re as on .” Fi l ar ’ s new ro l e a s a cadre subst i t ut e was co m p lica ted by the fact that sh e suffered from ost eoarthrit is. Fi lar’s ar thr i t i c hi p m ade w al k i ngl o ngdi st an ce s di f fi cul t , a nd s he co ul d no tdr i ve he r se l ft o w ork

. I n Nov embe r 1 99 9, s he re quested an a ccom m odat i on f or her di sabi l i ty fro m Chi ca g o Pub l i c S ch o o l s. S he want ed t o be st aff ed at“o ne pla ce o fwork w i th m i ni m um walk i ng d i st ance fro m p u b lic tra n sp or tation .” T h e B oa rd d en ied h er req u es t, st at i ng thatcadre s u b st i t ut es “m ustr epor tt o w hi chever schoo l the Subst i t ut e Cente r ass i gns [ them ] t o on th e d ay that[ they] r eceive the as sig n m ent ” a nd thather r eq u e s tw a s “ n o ta ma t t e r f o r w o r k

- p l a c e r e a s o n a b l e a c c o mm od atio n .” T h i s l a ws u i tf o l l o we d i n J u l y 2 0 0 4 , a l l e g i n g a g e d i s c r i mi nat i on un der the A ge Disc ri m i nat i on i n Em plo ym entA ct ba se d o n h er S ept embe r 1 99 9 di spl ac ementa nd tha tthe Board vio l at ed the A m er i cans with Dis abi l i t i es A ctby f ai l i ngt o acc o m m o dat e he r di sabi l i ty . Af t er di sc o ve r y , the B oa rd filed its m otion for su m m ar y j u d gm en t as to b oth c l aim s, w h ich the d istric t cou rt gra n ted . A s to F i l ar ’ s di sc r i m i na t i o n c l ai m , the c o ur treaso ne d tha ts he ha d f ai l ed t o s ho w a si m i l ar l y si t ua t ed empl o y ee an d thus co ul d no tpr o ve he r pr i m a f ac i e ca se . Ev eni fs he c o ul d, the cou r tr e a s o ne d, F i l a r h a d p r e s e nt e d ins uffi c i e nte v i de nc e8 N o. 07

- 1275 of p retext for the case to p roceed to tr ial

. A s fo r Fi lar’ s AD A cl ai m , the c o ur tr easo ne d tha tthe Bo ar d ha d no obl i gat i on t o st affher atscho ol s nea r publi c t ra nsport at i on. Because proxi m i ty t o pu bl i c t ran sp or t at i on di d not aff ec the r a bi l i ty t o a ctua l l y t ea ch i n a c lassroo m , the ac co m m od ati on she ha d r eq ue st ed was no tr el at ed t o the “e ss en ti alfunc ti o ns o fthe em p loym en t p osit ion,” sco tch ing he r ADA c l a i m. T hi s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on Fi l ar r ai ses tw o gener ali ssues o n a p peal , t ra cki ng her tw o cau ses of acti on. First, sh e c lai m s tha t the d ist rictcou rt er re d i n gr ant i ng the B oar d’s m ot i on f or sum m ar y j ud gm entas t o her age di scr i m i nat i on cl ai m . S eco nd , she ar gues tha tthe di str i ctco ur tha d a n un dul y c ab i ne d v i ew o fthe “e ss en t i alfunc t i o ns ” of the c adr e subs t i t ut e t ea ch er a nd thus e r r o ne o us l y g r an t ed the Bo ar d’ s su m m ar y j udg m en t mo t i o n a s t o h e r A D A c l a i m. We r e v i e w b o th c l a i ms d e nov o, draw ing allreason able inference s in Fi lar’ s fav or . E E O C v. B d. o

f R egen ts o

f U niv ersity of W isco nsin Sy s. , 28 8 F
. 3d 29 6, 30 1 ( 7th Ci r . 20 02 )

. The f o l l o wi ng se ct i o ns di sc us s ea ch i n tur n.
A . A D E A Claim A s s he di d bef or e the di st ri ctco urt, o n ap peal Fi l ar ch a l l e ng e s h e r di s pl a c e men tfr o m F o r e man i n S e pt em ber 1 9 9 9 , a l l e g i n g th a ta g e di s c r i mi n a t i o n , a n d n o ts o me l egi ti m at e per so nne l c o nc er n, was the e ng i ne b eh i nd D r. G ar ve y’s d e c i s i o n . F ilar ch os e to p ro ve h er ca se ind ir ec t l y thr o ug h a n adapt ed ve r si o n o fthe b ur den

- sh i f t i ng fr amewor kfi r sta nno unc ed i n M cDonne l l D ougl as Corp. v.N o. 07

- 1275 9

Fi l ar ’ s br i efj us t i fi es t hi s dec i s i on as r es ul t i ng fro m a l ac k of 1 “directev id ence ofdisc ri m inat ion. ” Bu t des pite the nom encl atu re,“ ’ d irect’ p ro of of d iscrim ina tion is no t lim ite d to near- adm is si on s b y the e m ployer t hat i ts decis ions w ere based on a pr oscr ib ed cr i t er i on ( e. g. , ‘ Y o u ’re to o o ld to w o rk h er e.’), b u t also inc lud es circu m stan tial e v id en ce w hich sug g ests disc ri m inat ion thr o u g h a l onger chai n ofi nf erenc es . ” A t a nus v. Perry , ___ F .3d

_ __ , 20 08 W L 69 69 08 , * 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 )

. One c an que s t i on whet he r t he di f f er en c es t hatr em ai n be t ween the “direct ” and “indire ct ” m ethods are m ore a res ult o f hi st ory than l ogic. In any event, Fil ar’ s cl aim ed lack of“direc t” e vidence i s not nec es s ar i l y a s uf fi c i en trea s on t o sc ut t l e a “ di re c t ” m ethod c l a i m. G reen , 4 11 U. S
. 7 92 ( 19 73 )

. As a ppl i ed t o e m pl o y m en t 1 act i ons l i ke displ acem ent , i fa pla i nt i f fes t abl i shes her p rim a fa c ie c as e, th e b u rd en s h i fts to the em p loy er to ar t i cul at e a l egi t i m at e no n-di scr i m i nat or y r eas on f or the a d ver se em plo ym entacti on; aft er wh i ch the bur den shi f t s ba ck t o the pl ai nt i f ft o prese ntso m e e vi dence that th is re as on is a p re tex t for d i sc rim in atio n . Raduev. Kim b e r ly- Clark Corp. , 2 19 F .3d 6 12 , 618 (7th C ir. 20 00 ). Th is p roced ura l d evice sh arp en s the f actua l issu e s for a possibl e t ri al ; th e em plo yer m ustpro vi de so m e r eas on f or i t s a ct i on thata pla i nt i f fcan at t ack, r ath er than st an d mut e ex ce ptt o de nythe s uffi ci en cyo fthe pl ai ntiff’s ev id en c e. Fila r ra ise s s ev er al iss u es rela te d to this fr a me wo r k , d i s c u s s e d i n t u r n i n th e s e c t i o n s th a tf o l l o w.
1. Ap pro pri at e Pr i m a F aci e Case Fi l ar ar gues fi rs tthatthe co urt u se d th e wrong seto f factors to evalu a te h e r prim a facie case. T he distri ct court a pp l i e d the f a mi l i a r f o ur - f a c t o r p r i ma f a c i e c a s e f o r a d-10 N o. 07

- 1275

ver se em plo ym entacti ons re quir i ng pro ofthat( 1) Fi l ar w as over age forty; (2) h e r j ob p erform an ce m et D r. G a r v e y ’ s e x p e c t a t i o n s ; ( 3 ) s h e s u f f e r e d a n a d v e r s e e mp loy m en t ac tion ; an d (4) th e e m p loy er trea ted “s im ilar ly sit ua ted” em p loyees atl e a s t t en years you ng er m ore f a v or ab ly. Se eBurks v. W i s co ns i n Dept
. of Trans p. , 4 6 4 F. 3d 744, 750- 51 ( 7th Cir

. 20 06)

. On app eal , Fi l ar i nst ead char act er i zes her displ acem ent as bei ng part ofa m i ni

- re du ct i on in fo rc e. W h en a n e m p loy ee is d ism iss ed as p ar t of a m in iRI F , the di smi ss ed wor k er ’ s dut i es a re s pr ea d o uta m o ng th e re m ain in g e m p loy ee s. M er il lat v. M et al Spinne rs , Inc. , 470 F. 3d 685, 690 (7th Cir
. 2006)

. T he ret ent i on ofyo unger em plo yee s who t ake o n the di sm i sse d em ployee ’ s r esponsibi l i t i es “i s no thi ng m or e than a dem onstra t i on o f m ore f av o r ab l e t r ea t m en t , pa r t i cul ar l y t ai l o r ed t o the f act ual ci rcum st ances ofa m i ni

- RI F c ase . ” Id. a t6 9 0 n . 1
. As a res u lt, th e pr im a fa c ie ca se i n thi s co nt ex ts waps the fou rth req u ire m en t in th e b as ic fra m e w o r k— th at a s im ilarl y situ a ted you ng er em p loyee w as tr eated m ore f avo ra bl y— w i th another— that her du t i es w er e abso rbed byy o ung er wor k er s who wer e r et ai ne d f o l l o wi ng th e m in i-R IF. Id. a t6 90

- 69 1. Thu s, i n F i l ar ’ s es t i m ati o n, the di str i ctc o ur ta ppl i ed the wro ngst an dar d a nd thus er re d i n re quir i ng p ro ofthat“si m i l ar l y si t uat ed” yo unger t eacher s were t re at ed m or e f avo ra bl y. T h e d i s t r i c tc o ur tc a n n o tb e f a u l t e d f o r f a i l i n g t o e mp loy th e m in i-R IF sta n d ar d b ec au se a m in i-R IF c l a im wa s n o tf ai rl y b e f o r e i t
. F i l a r ’ s c o mpl a i ntdi d n o ti nc l ud e al l ega t i ons consi st entwith a m i ni

- RI F c l aim
. A nd i n her re sponse t o the def endant’s m ot i on f or sum m ar y j ud gm en t, Fil ar argue d tha t a red uc ti on in force, the regularsized variety, p recipitat ed he r d isplacem en t. A s this C ou rt ha s ex pl ai ne d, the r el ev an tf ac t ua l i nqui r y i n a r edu ct i o n-N o. 07

- 1275 11

F ila r’s p re se n ta tio n o f th e e v id en ce in h e r L o ca l R u le 56 .1 2 st atem e nto ft he f a c t s wa s a l s o i nc on s i s t e ntwi t h a m i ni

- R IF cl aim
. O n app eal , s he only p oint s to tw o f act s from her statem en t— tha t R y d b erg an d M on aco tau g ht co m p u ters in the 1999 s chool year

— to s up port h er m ini

- R IF cl aim
. That th es e tw o w ere teac hing com pu ter s, a s ub j ectthatFil ar had t a ug htpr i or t o di s pl a c e m e nt , do e s n otm e a n t ha tt he y “ a bsorbed” her duties after her dep art ure. To sh o w t h a t, s om ethi ng m ore wo uld b e needed— f or ex am p le , a show ing t hat th is w a s a n i n c re a se in th ei r d u tie s. M i chas , 209 F. 3d at 693. I n a ny e ven t , t he m ini- RIF c l ai m was s i m pl y no tbe f or e t he d istrict cou rt, as a leg al m atter or a s rep resen ted b y the facts. i n- f o r ce c as e i s n ot t he s ame a s a m i ni

- RI F c as e. I n the f o r m er , a pl ai nt i f f ’ s po si t i o n was e li m in at ed en t i r el y a nd w ill no t be refille d w h er ea s “ [t]h e p oin t of a m in i-R IF unli ke a t r ue R I F , i s tha tthe j o b r e a l l y wa s n o te l i mi na t ed atal l ; bec ause the fi re d em plo yee ’ s dut i es w er e a bso rbe d by others , they w er e eff ect i vel y ‘ re pla ced, ’ notel i m i nat ed .” Bel l ave rv. Q uan e x Corp. , 200 F.3d 485 , 495 (7th C ir. 2000). T h e p ra c tica l effe c t of th is for m al d iffer en c e , on e th at is f at alt o Fi l ar ’ s cl ai m s, i s thatthe type o f p ro ofexpect ed of a mi n i

- R I F c l a i m i s d i f f e r e n tth a n th a ts t e mmi n g fr o m a f or m alRI F. Fo r her m i ni

- RIF c l ai m , Fi l ar had t o show tha ther po si t i o n was “ ab so rbe d” bythe r emai ni ng yo u n ge r c o-w or ke rs , no t ju s t e lim in ate d

. M ichas v. H ealt h C ost C ontrols of Ill inois , Inc. , 209 F.3d 687 , 693 (7th C ir. 20 00 ). B u t Filar d id n ot p u rp or t t o m ak e th is s h ow in g in either he r mem o r an dum i n o ppo si t i o n t o the Bo ar d’s m otion for s u m m ar y ju d gm en t or h er L oc al R u le 5 6.1 st at emento ff ac t s. I ns t ea d, the thr us t o f he r RI F a r g um en t 2 consi st ed o fa s t at ementtha t“ y o ung er wor k er s . . . w ere fa v o ra b ly re tain ed in th e R IF w h ile [sh e] w as d isp lac ed .” A n ap t statem en t of he r ev id en tiary bu rd en in a R IF12 N o. 07

- 1275 claim , bu t not a m ini- R I F one. I n sh ort , the d istri ct court did no te r r i n i t s t r e a t men to fF i l a r ’ s c l a i m be c a us e i twas n ev er as ke d to t re at su c h a c l a im
. See Weigel v . Ta rget Sto res , 12 2 F
. 3d 46 1, 46 4 ( 7th Ci r . 19 97 )

. Acco r di ng ly, the distri ctco urtappli ed the r i ghtpri m a f aci e ca se.

2. “ Simil ar l y Si t uate d” Youn gerEm ploy ees Even so, did i t apply the st andard cor re ct l y? The part i es agr ee that( 1) Fi l ar was ove r for ty i n Se pte m ber 19 99; ( 2) sh e was m ee t i ng the sc ho o l ’ s l eg i t i m at e em pl o y m en t ex pec t ati o ns ; a nd ( 3) s he s uff er ed an a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac tion

— th r e e of the fou r ele m en ts of h er p rim a fa c ie c a s e . Bu tthe p a r t i e s di s pu t e wh e the r F i l a r p r e s e nt ed a “si m i l arly si t uat ed” yo unger em plo yee wh o w as t re at ed m ore favorably. Th e d ist rictcou rtreject ed each of Fil ar’s propos ed com parat or s be cause, pri ort o Fi l ar ’ s di sp l aceme n t , e a c h was a t e n u r e - t r a c kt e a c h e r , n o ta fu l l

- t i me subst i t ut e l i ke Fi l ar . Because t enure- track t eacher s do not com pet e with full

- t i m e s ubst i t ut es i n term s ofse ni or i ty, the co urtr eas oned, Fi l ar c ou l d notpoi ntt o them as “s im ilar ly situ ate d ” y ou n ge r em p loy ee s a n d thu s c ou ld notes t abl i sh her pri m a f aci e ca se. W e d isa gr ee . W h eth er tw o e m p loy ee s a re “s im ilar ly si t ua t ed” i s a co m m o n s en se i nqui r y tha tde pen ds o n the em p loy m en t con tex t. Radue , 219 F. 3d at 618. T h e pu rpos e of the pri m a fa c ie case i s t o ensure thatthere i s e nough ev i den ce t o r ai se the s pec t er o fdi sc r i m inati o n, j us t i fy i ng j ud g men tf o r the p l a i nti f f i f the e mpl o y e r do e s n o tp r o v i de a l egi t i m at e business re aso n f or i t s a ct i on. See Coll i e rv. Budd Co. , 6 6 F
. 3 d 8 8 6 , 8 9 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 )

. All thi ngs be i nge qua l , i fa n e m pl o y er t ak es a n a ct i o n a g ainsto ne em plo yee i n a pr ot ect ed cl ass butnotano ther out si de thatN o. 07

- 1275 13

c las s, on e c an infe r d isc rim in atio n . S e eHumph r i e s v . CBOCS Wes t, Inc. , 47 4 F .3d 38 7, 40 5 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). Th e “ sim ilar ly si t uat ed” pro ng es t abl i shes w hether al l thi ngs a re i n f act eq u al. Id. To mak e thi s s ho wi ng , a pl a i nti f f need not pr es en ta do ppel g an g er who di f f er s o nl y b yha vi ng re m ai ned i n the em plo yer ’ s goo d gr aces . But the co m parat o r musts t i l l b e si m i l ar en o ug h “t o e l i m i na t e co nf o undi ng var i abl es, such as d i f f er i ng rol es, per f or m ance hi st or i es, o r dec isio n-m aki ng per sonnel , [ so as t o] i sol at e the cr i t i cal in d ep en d en t va ria b le: co m p lain ts ab ou t d isc rim in atio n .” Id. Tw o ofthe co m p arat or s o f f er ed by Fi l ar — Rydberg , 42 , a n d Mo n a c o , 3 9 —we r e “ s i mi l a r l y si t u a t e d ” y o u n g e r e mp loy ee s for p u rp os es of h er p rim a fa c ie case . A l l three had t aughtatFo re m an f or r oughl y the sa m e per i od oft i m e. D r. Ga r v e y hired Fi lar in 1992 an d he h ired both R yd berg and M onaco so on there aft er wh i l e F i l ar was gr i evi ng her o r i g i na l di s pl a c e men t
. Al l thr e e we r e p r o pe r l y c er t i fi e d, an d b y a l l meas ur es the i r dut i es wer e the sa m e. To the ext entthatthei r cer t i fi cat i ons diff er ed atthe t i m e that Dr
. Ga r v e y di s pl a c e d F i l a r , i t wa s b e c a us e F i l ar had re cei ved her T yp e 0 9 t eachi ng ce rt i fi cat e i n 199 7 whereas R yd b er g a n d M on ac o h ad on l y a tta in ed it in 19 99 . I n addi t i o n, F i l a r ’ s T y pe 0 9 c e r t i fi c a t e h a d the b i l i ngual a pp ro v a l wh e r e a s n e i the r R y db e r g ’ s n o r Mo na c o ’ s di d. Dr. Garve y s up er vi sed a ll three t eacher s, and, as f ar as the record show s, non e h ad any d iscipli na ry or p erform a n c e is su es at the tim e o f Filar ’s d isp lac em en t. Dr
. Ga r ve y c o ns i der ed F i l ar t o b e a g o o d t ea ch er ; he had c o ns i st en t l y r at ed F i l ar ’ s per f o r m an ce e va l ua t i o ns as “S upe r i o r ” o r “ Exce l l en t ” fr o m 1 99 4 thr o ug h 1 99 9. The re cor d does notindic at e w hatscor es Rydbergand M onaco r e c e i v e d , b u tg i v e n F i l a r ’ s h i g h ma r k s w e c a n a s s u me14 N o. 07

- 1275 for p r e s e n t p urp oses they w ere sim il ar i n this regard as w ell. Despit e these si m i l ar i t i es, the dis t ri ctco urtco nsi dered thei r diff er ences i n seni or i ty t o be f at alt o an y showing of sim ilar ity. A s th e c ou rt co rre c tly n ote d , f u ll-tim e s u b stitutes w ere less senior t o t en ure -t rack teach e r s for p urposes o fdi spl acem ent
. A nd , unl i ke Fi l ar , bo th com parat or s were t en u re -t ra ck t eacher s. I n so m e ci rcum st ances, d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e n i o r i ty wi l l p r e c l u d e a s h o wi n g th a ttwo em plo yee s are “si m i l ar l y s i t uat ed” or o fag e di scr i m i nat i on m or e g en er ally . To the e x ten t th at se n iority is a s im p le p ro x y for so m eth in g like the len gth of em p loy m en t an d is so m ethi ngtha ta n e m pl o y er mustc r edi twhen making em p loy m en t d ec isio n s, d iffer en c es in se n iority w ill t en d to m ak e two e m pl o y ee s di ss i m i l ar f o r pur po se s o fthe pl ai ntiff’s p rim a fa c ie cas e. See, e . g. , D oev. Fi rs t Nat
. Bank o f Chic ago , 8 6 5 F
. 2 d 86 4 , 87 7( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( c r e d i t i n g c o mp ar ato r’s “lon g ten u re ” in d en yin g th at sh e w as “s im ilar ly si t ua t ed” )

. Thi s i s be ca us e, i n mak i ngthe e m pl o y m en t d ec isio n , th e e m p loy er h ad to c re d it a fa c tor ov er w h ich it had no c o ntr o l , a nd thu s a fi nd i ngo fi nt e nti o na l ag e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n w o u l d b e i mp l a u s ib l e g i v e n th a tth e e mplo yer ’ s “ i nt ent ”— disc ri m i nat or y o r othe rw i se— w as l ar gel y i rr el evantt o the deci si on. H ad th i s be en the cas e at For eman, the di str i ctc o ur twoul d ha ve b ee n r i g ht to co n c lu d e t h a t Filar w as n ot “s im ilar ly situ ate d ” to t enure- t ra ck t eacher s. Butwh ere s en i o r i ty i s unmoo r ed fr o m e ve r y thi ngb ut the di sc r eti o n o fthe e m pl o y er , the sim pl e f ac ttha tthe com para tor i s m or e s eni or t o the pl ai nt i f fm ay notbe d isp os itive , eve n w h er e th e em p loy er m u st c re d it sen iority i n em plo ym entdeci si ons. A n em plo yer co uld e xerci se its d iscret ion i n con ferri ng seniority i n a d iscrim inatory f as hi o n, makinga n i m m edi at el y s ubs eq ue nte m pl o y m en tN o. 07

- 1275 15

ac t i o n bas ed o n s en i o r i ty di sc r i m i na t o r y a s wel l

. I n a re l at ed cont ext , w e have hel d thatan “ em plo yer cannot frust ra t e the st at ut e m er el y by as si gni ng ev er y e m plo yee a di f f er entj ob t i t l e. ” Be l l a v e rv . Qu a n e x Corp. , 2 00 F. 3d 485, 494 ( 7th Cir
. 2000 )

. Si m i l ar l y, an em plo yer c an not d e f e a ta c l a i m o fd i s c r i mi n a t i o n b y g i v i n g y o u n g e r e mploye es gr eat er se ni or i ty r i ght s i m m edi at el y b ef or e di spla ci ng an ol der, butl ess se ni or , em plo yee . T h is is nott o saythatDr. Garve y a nd the Boar d have do ne s o i n thi s c a s e . Bu tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ncl ud ed thatthe di f f er ences i n seni or i ty a l one w er e s uffi ci entto d efe at a fin d in g th at Fila r’s co m p ar ato rs w er e “ sim ilar ly si t uat ed. ” Gi ven the m an i pu l abi l i ty o fse ni or i ty a tFo re m an , th is w as err or . A ltho u gh se n iority h ad so m e b ite to i twh en a pri nci pal had to d i spl ace t eacher s—by rul e, l es s se ni o r t ea ch er s wentb ef o r e m o r e sen i o r — the c o nf er r alo fs en i o r i ty i t se l fc o ns i st ed o fno thi ngmor e th an a m i ne - r un, di sc r eti o na r y pe r son ne l de ci si o n made b y the p rin c ip al. Bu t se e A delm an-R eye s v . S aint XavierU niversi ty , 500 F. 3d 662, 66 7 ( 7th Cir

. 20 07) (d iscussi ng r el uct ance o fc o ur tt o g e ti n v o l v e d i n t e n u r e d e c i s i o n s w h e r e a c c o mp an ied by “m u ltip le la ye rs of in d ep en d en t rev iew ”). In add i t i on, as seen a bove , a t eacher thata pri nci pal m ove d t o a t enure- t ra ck po sit i on di d notthere by obt ai n gr eat er du t i es. N or d i d the pri nci pal nece ssa ri l y m ake the deci si on sol el y o n the bas i s o fso m e di f f er ence i n the t eacher s’ resp ecti ve q ua li fi cation s — som ething tha t m ight otherw i se precl ud e a sho w i ng o f“si m i l ar l y si t uat ed. ” W hether on the t enure t ra ck or a full

- t i m e s ubsti t ut e, al l three w er e t ea c h er s w ith, as far as th e evid en c e sh ow s , n ea rly i denti calr espons ibilities an d q u alific atio n s. See B ella ver , 20 0 F. 3d at 494 ( st at i ng thatco m parat or s a nd pl ai nt i f f“had the abi l i ty t o perf or m ea ch other’s t ask s, ev en though16 N o. 07

- 1275 th ey h ad d iffer en t t itles a n d sp ec ific re sp on sib iliti es ”). In sh or t, alth ou gh p r i n c ip als are free to m ak e s en iority deci si ons as they s ee fi t

—j u st as any e m plo yer can m ove an em pl o y e e fr o m o ne j o b t o the n e xt

— the di f f e r e nces i n seni or i ty here w er e not i nconsi st ent w i th inte nt i onal d isc rim in atio n , as th e d istric t c ou rt im p lied

. A s a r e s u l t, i n l i ghto fthe o ther f act or s l i st ed abo ve, Fi l ar has poi nt ed t o tw o “si m i l ar l y s ituat ed” yo unger em plo yee s t o est abl i sh her pri m a f aci e ca se.
3. T h e B oa rd ’s L eg itim ate N on -D is c rim in ato ry Reason and Fi l ar ’ s Evi den ce o fPr et ext Fil ar hav ing establi sh ed her p r im a facie case, the Bo ard m ustartic ula t e a l egi t i m at e business re aso n f or di splacin g he r a nd no tthe y o ung er t ea ch er s. Be f o r e the distri ctco urtand her e o n appeal , the Boar d has poi nt ed t o the decl i ne i n enr ol l m ent in the Pol i sh bi l i ngual pro gr am co m bi ned w i th the f actthatFi l ar was the l eas t seni or t eacher i n the pro gr am . The i ssue now i s w h ether thi s r eas on was pret ext ua l. S how i ng pre t extr equi re s “[ p]r oo fthatthe def endant’s expl anat i on i s unw or thy o f cre dence. ” R ee ves v. Sa nders on P lum bing Products , Inc. , 53 0 U .S. 13 3, 14 7 (2 00 0); see also S ublett v. Jo hn W iley & So ns, Inc. , 46 3 F .3d 7 31 , 73 7 ( 7th Cir

. 20 06) ( “Pre t exti s a ‘ l i e, spe ci fi ca l l y a pho ny r ea so n f o r so m e ac t i o n. ’ ”). The pla i nt i f f ’ s ul t i m at e bur den i s t o show thati nt en t i onalag e di sc r i m i na t i o n mot i va t ed the e m pl o y er ’ s act ion , b ut m ar shal i ng such e vi dence does n ot al w ays r equi re a sm oking g un or an e yewitn es s to the em plo yer ’ s di scri m i nat or y desi gns; “the t ri er of f actcan re aso nabl y i nfe r fro m the fals ity of th e e x p lan atio n tha t th e e m p l oy er is diss em bl i ng t o cove r up a disc ri m i nat or y purpose . ” R eeves , 53 0 U. S
. a t1 47
. Thu s, i n c er t ai n c i r cumst an ce s, “ a plai n-N o. 07

- 1275 17

Fil ar m akes at t im es co n trad ic tory c lai m s regarding w hen 3 Dr
. Ga r ve y a c t ua l l y kn e w t ha ts ome on e would need t o be (co n tin u ed ...) t i f f ’ s pri m a f aci e ca se, co m bi ned w ith suffi ci entev i dence to fin d tha t th e e m p l oy er ’s a ss er ted j u stific atio n is f al se , may per m i tthe t r i er o ff ac tt o c o nc l ude tha tthe em plo yer unl aw full y di scr i m i nat ed. ” Id. W e co ncl ud e th atFi l ar has prese nt ed enough e vi dence t o und er m i ne the Boar d’s cl ai m , speci fi cal ly the ev i dence o fthe t i m i nga nd e f f ec t o f the s er i es o fpe r so nne l de ci si o ns D r. G ar ve y m ad e o ve r th e s u m m e r an d fall of 19 99 . A j ur y c o ul d c o nc l ude tha tthe o nl y r ea so n tha tF i l ar was the l eas tseni or ful l

- t i m e s ubst i t ut e a tthe t i m e o fthe di spl acem en tde ci si o n was b ec au se D r. Ga r ve y ha d puthe r , a nd n ot the you n ge r tea c h er s, in tha t po sit i o n . First, in spring 1 999, Dr. Garve y knew thatthe dem and fo r Pol i sh bi l i ng ua l e duca t i o n wo ul d de cr ea se . An a f fi d av i ta nd s ummar y c ha r tfr o m Ro s a V a z qu e z , the Ex e c ut i v e Adm i ni st ra t or i n the Departm ento fLangu ag e o fCulture, i nd i cat ed thatF or em an would l ose o ne Boar d-fund ed posi t i on betw een 1998 and 1 999, though the dat e of th is re portwas the f al l o f1 99 9. I n her deposi t i on, she st at ed tha ts ch o o l pr i nc i pal s r ec eive d a si m i l ar r epo r te sti m ati ng pr o spe ct i ve demand f o r sc ho o l pr o g r ams i n the s pr i ng of e ve ry s c h oo l yea r. In a d d ition , th is in for m atio n w ou ld be a va i l ab l e “l i ve ” t o s ch o o l pr i nc i pal s thr o ug ho utthe ye ar . Step h en H elle r, a H u m an R es ou rc es s p e c ialis t, si m i l ar l y de sc r ibe d the staffi ngpr o ce ss a s be i ngo ng o i ng thro ughoutthe sc h ool ye ar , i ncl ud i ng thro ugh the use of proj ect i ons. Thus, the ev i dence, vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm ost f avo ra bl e t o Fi l ar , sho w s thatin sp rin g 1 999 Dr. Garve y k ne w he woul d b e l o singo ne Bo ar d- funde d po si t i o n. 318 N o. 07

- 1275

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 displac ed. O n the one hand , she says that Dr. G arvey “em barked o n a p l a n t o d i s p l a c e F i l a r t h a td a t e d b a c k t o t h e e a r l y s u mm er o f 19 99 .” A nd t h a t h e w an ted “to isolate F ilar as th e on ly [ ful l

- t i m e s ubs t i t ut e] i n the Pol i s h bi l i ngua l pro gr am . ” Buti n the ne x tbr e a t h, s he c l a i m s t ha t st af fi ng n e e ds c ou l d n otbe m a de unt i l t h e f a l l o f1 9 9 9 , wh i c h i s h a r d t o r e c o n c i l e wi t h h e r a r gum en t that D r. G arv ey b en t pr oce d u ra l p e r son ne l rule s to his designs from the “earl y sum m er of1999. ” Because the re cord does no ts uppor the r l at t er c l ai m , we c ons t ru e he r m or e ge nera l claim con sistently w ith w ha t the rec or d d oe s sup p or t. S e c o nd , i n s pr i nga nd s ummer1 9 9 9 , Dr
. Ga r v e y ma de per so nne l de ci si ons to move F i l ar fr o m the mos tt o the l eas tse ni or full

- t i m e s ubst i t ut e pos i t i on. A tthe end of t he 199 8 s c ho o l y e a r , F i l a r wa s s t i l l a ful l

- t i me b a s i s subs t i t ut e , h a v i nga s l i g htl y l o ng e r t e nu r e tha n e i the r R y db e r g o r Mo na c o . I n Mar c h 1 9 9 9 , Ry db e r g r e c e i v e d h i s T y pe 09 cer t i fi cat e, though notthe bi l i ngual approv al s, a nd o n J uly23 , 19 99 Dr. Garve y a pp oi nt ed Rydbergt o a t enuret ra ck posi t i on. On A ugust18, 19 99, M onaco r eceived her Type 09 cer t i fi cat e, si m i l ar l y withouther bi l i ngual approv al s, and on S ept em ber 3, 19 99, Dr. Garve y a pp ointe d her to a ten u r e - tr ac k p os ition . I n j u stify in g h is d ec isio n s to m ove Ryd b er g and M onaco , butnotFi l ar , t o t enure- t ra ck posi t i ons, Dr. G ar ve y sai d thati twas base d on hi s “ j ud gm en t ” tha tthe y wer e “mor e sui t ed t o the po si t i o n. ” But in later ex p lain in g h ow h e e x er c ise d thi s “ j u d gm en t,” Dr. G ar ve y coul d notr ecal l any ofthe speci fi cs. Thi rd, o n Se pte m ber 12 , 19 99, Dr. Garveym ove d Fi l ar o uto fa st at efund ed p osi t i on— w hi ch w oul d rem ai n fund ed— i nt o a Board- fund ed posi t i on— w h ich would not

. H e then dis

p laced Fi lar.N o. 07

- 1275 19 Up t o thi s po i nt , the e vi den ce i s co ns i st en twi th b o th a des i r e t o o us tF il ar— f o r what ev er r ea so n— an d a n i nt en t t o disc ri m i nat e a gai nsther bec au se ofher ag e. N onethel ess , the di f f er ent i alt re at m entaff or ded Fi l ar and her you ng er coll eagu es, along w ith the ti m ing of D r. Ga rvey’s de c i s i o ns , i nc h F i l a r ’ s c a s e f o r wa r d a nd s a t i s fy us that an i ssue off actexi st s a s t o disc ri m i nat i on. Fi rs t , Dr. Garve y f ai l ed t o appointFi l ar o nce s he was proper l y c er t i fi ed b u t alm os t im m ed iate l y a p p oin ted you n ge r tea c h er s to m o r e s en ior p os ition s. S e eGo r do n v . Uni t e d Ai r l i n e s , Inc. , 24 6 F.3d 87 8, 89 2 (7th C ir. 20 01 ) (“A sh ow in g th at sim ilar ly si t ua t ed empl o y ee s be l o ng i ngt o a di f fere ntr ac i alg r o up re cei ved m or e f avo ra bl e t re at m entcan al so ser ve as evi dence thatthe em plo yer ’ s pro f f er ed l egi t i m at e, nondi scri m in ato ry r eas on f or the adver se j ob act i on was a pretex t for ra c i al d isc rim in atio n .”); see also Fisch er v. A va na de, Inc. , 51 9 F
. 3d 393, 405- 06 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08)

. Fi l ar had re cei ved h er T yp e 0 9 ce rtifica tion in 1 99 7. D es p ite the fac t th at it wa s f a i r l y c o mmo n f o r fu l l

- t i me s u b s t i t u t e s t o b e c o me t en ur e- tr ack t ea ch er s aft err ec eivi ngthi s ce r t i fi ca t i o n, Fila r d id n ot m ov e o n c e s h e r e c eiv ed h er T yp e 0 9 c er tifi cat i on. But w hen Rydberg , 42 , and M onaco , 39 , r eceived thei r cer t i fi cat i ons i n spri ng and sum m er 19 99, Dr. Garve y al m osti m m edi at el y m ade them t enure- t ra ck tea c hers

. Fi lar m ai nt ai ned “Superi or ” a nd “Excel l ent ” i n her r evi ews , and i n hi s de po si t i o n Dr. Gar ve y co ul d no tg i ve a ny r e a s o n f o r f a i l i ng to m o v e F i l a r t o the t e nu r e t r a c ke xc e pt that“he f el tthese [ other] t eacher s s uit ed [ t enure- t ra ck posi t i ons] bet t er . ” Because the onl y sal i entd i f f er ence betw e e n Filar and the youn ger t each ers w as age, a j ury coul d concl ud e thatag e m ot i vat ed Dr. Garve y’ s deci si ons. I n addit i on, the t i m i n g of Dr. Garve y’ s a pp oi nt m ento f M o na co a nd Ry dbe r g was que sti o na bl e. Bo th Ry dbe r g a nd20 N o. 07

- 1275

This c ase al so i m plic ates a l ine ofreas oning in our c ase l aw 4 t hatd es er ves m en t i on. T hi s C our thas hel d t hatan “i nf er en c e of nond is cri m inat ion” i n age d iscr im inat ion c ase s ari se s w hen t he pl ai nt i f fi s al re ady o ver 40 when hi re d and the s am e per s on d o es th e h ir in g an d th e fir in g . See , e . g. , Ri t t e rv . Hi l l ‘N Da l e F a r m, Inc. , 23 1 F .3d 10 3 9 , 10 4 5 (7t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ); C hiaramontev. Fas hi on Be d Group, Inc. , 129 F. 3d 391, 399 ( 7th Cir

. 1997)

. This inferenc e has the m ostbit e wh ere “a relat ivel y shortti m e s pan” separate s th e t w o . S ee Rit te r , 23 1 F .3d at 10 4 4 (tw o y ea rs ), C h iara m on te , 129 F. 3d at 39 9 ( t er m i nat i on f ol l owed t wo yea rs aft er r et en t i on of em p lo y ee in m er g er ); R and v. C F In d ust ries , Inc. , 42 F. 3d 1139, 1147 ( 7th Cir

. 1994) ( two years )

. This is because iti s unlikel y that a de c i s i onm ake r deve l ope d an “a ver s i on t o ol der p eo pl e” in t he “r el at i vel y s hor tt i m e s pan” bet ween hi ri ng a nd fi ri ng. C h iara m on te , 12 9 F
. 3d a t399
. H er e, Fi l ar was wel l withi n the pro t ec t ed c l as s , 62 ye ar s ol d, when hi re d by Dr. G arv ey , who ul t i m at el y di s pl ac ed h er . Nonethe l es s , t wo co ns i der at i ons c onvi nc e us t hatt hi s i nf er en c e ofno ndi s c ri m i nat i on i s no t control li ng in this cas e. Fir st , Fil ar’ s hiri ng and displ acem en twere sev en ye ar s apa rt , a per i od s uf fi c i en tt o dul l t he i nf er en c e t hatDr. Gar vey had n otdi s c ri m i nated. As i de fro m fl a gr a nta ge i s m — or a n “ ave r s i on t o ol de r pe op l e ”

— t he ADEA ai m s t o c ur b ac t i ons bas ed on an em pl oye r’ s unf ai r as s um pt i ons a b o u t a n o ld er w o rk er ’s p ro d u ct iv ity
. See G ene ra l Dyn ami cs (co n tin u ed ...) M onaco w entfro m full

- t i m e s ubst i t ut es t o prot ect ed t enure- t ra ck t eacher s im m ed i at el y b ef or e Dr. Garve y di spl ac ed the l ea sts en i o r full -t i m e subs t i t ut e. W i tho ut fi rs tm aki ng these tw o perso nnel m ove s, Dr. Garve y w oul d have needed t o displ ace a y ounger t eacher , and not F i l a r . Whe n v i e we d wi th F i l a r ’ s p r i ma f a c i e c a s e a nd the oth er ev i d en c e, th is e vid en c e o f D r. G ar ve y’s se em in gly str at eg i c be ha vi o r woul d be su f fi ci en t t o su ppo r t a fi ndi ng o fdi sc r i m i na t i o n. 4N o. 07

- 1275 21

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 La nd Sys t e ms , Inc . v. Cl i ne , 5 4 0 U. S
. 5 8 1 , 5 8 6

- 8 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; 2 9 U. S
. C. § 62 1 (a )(2 ) (200 6). A s w or k ers ag e, their m arg ina l pr od u ctiv ity m ay f all and the cos ts o f retai ning them m ay ri se , w hether t hr ou gh h i gh e r be nef it s c os t s o r t he h i gh e r s a l a r i e s t he y’ ve ea rn ed

. Cl i ne , 54 0 U. S. at58 6- 87
. As a re s ul t , e m pl oye rs m i ght thi nk that you nger w o rk ers can do the s am e wo rk as older worker s ata l ower pr i c e, whethe r m ea s ur ed i n t i m e or m on ey . Givi ng e f f ec tt o the s e as s um pt i ons by s wappin g t he old er w i t h the youn ge r worke r would be an ac tofag e discr im in a t io n . Haz e n Pa pe rCompa ny v. Bi gg i ns , 507 U.S
. 604, 610 ( 1993) ( “Iti s the very ess ence ofage dis cri m inat ion f or an ol der em ployee to be f ir ed b ecaus e th e em ployer beli eves that p ro d u ctiv ity a nd com p eten ce d ecline w ith o ld ag e.”). Fo r this rea son , the f act th at a w o r k e r w as w ithin the p ro tected class w hen hir ed m ight not be as tell ing in som e c ase s: An em ployer m a y a ssu m e an over- f orty em ployee i s prod ucti ve w hen hir ed bu t no t ye a r s l a t e r . I t m a y be r e a s on a bl e t o a s s ume that D r. G arv ey d id n ot ha v e an “ av ersion to old er p eo p le” b eca u se he h i red Filar w he n sh e w as 62
. B u t it’ s j u st as reaso na b le to as s um e t hatDr. Gar vey vi ewed F i l ar as pr oduc t i ve at62 but no ta t6 9
. S e c on d, pl a c i ng t oo s t r on g a r e l i a nc e o n a n i nfe rence ofno ndi s c ri m i nat i on m ay go t oo f ar att he su m m ary j udgm en ts t age . I n Fi l ar ’ s cas e, t hi s i nf er en c e would be i n f avor of t h e p a r t y mo v i n g f o r s u mm a r y j u d g me n t
. B u tt h e S u p r e me Cour tan d t hi s Cour tha ve rec ogni ze d t hats um m ar y j udgm en t in d iscrim ina tion cases sh o u l d no t be treate d d ifferen tly th a n o th er k in d s o fc a se s. S ee Reeves , 530 U.S
. at 148 ( “[ T]ri al cou rt s should not ‘ tr eat disc ri m inat ion diff erent ly from other ul t i m at e que s t i ons of f ac t
. ’ ”) ( quo t i ng St. M ary Honors C ent erv. H i cks , 50 9 U .S. 5 0 2 , 52 4 (19 9 3 )); Ada ms , 2 3 1 F
. 3 d a t4 2 8
. Un der R ule 56, “the draw ing ofl egit im ate inferenc es from the f act s are j ury f uncti ons, ” and the cou rt “m ust disr egard all evidence fav or ab le to th e m ov ing p arty tha t the ju ry is no t requ ired to (co n tin u ed ...)22 N o. 07

- 1275

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 beli eve. ” R eeves , 530 U.S
. at 150- 51 ( so descr ib in g the approach un de r Ru l e 5 0 wh e r e “ t h e i n q u i r y . . . i s t h e s a me ” )

. I n l i ght of t he a bo ve , we do n otbe l i e ve t ha ta j ur y i s req ui r e d t o be l i e ve t hatDr. Gar vey di d notdi s cri m i nat e aga i ns tFi l ar when s he was 69 j us tbe c aus e he h ired her when s he was 62
. Thus , t he inferenc e ofnond is cri m inat ion does notcontr ol i n thi s cas e. The ul t i m at e v erd ict in thi s ca se i s byno m eans a f or egone co ncl usi on. A ju ryco uld co ncl ud e thatDr. Garve y j ustwante d t o displ ace Fi l ar b ec ause thatwas the be st deci si on f or the sc hool

. Or the j ury co u ld s urm i se that Dr
. Ga r ve y mean tt o di tch an o l der wor k er b y g i vi ng younge r t eacher s seni or i ty i m m edi at el y pri or t o m aki ng a sen ior i ty-base d perso nnel deci si on. Because the ev i dence sl i ght l y p re pond er at es t owards the l at t er and beca use o f th e S u p r e me C o u r t ’ s “ c a u t i o n a r y n o t e n o tt o g r a n ts u mm ar y jud gm en t t oo rea d ily w h en fac ts a re su sc ep tible to tw o i nt er pret at i ons, ” A dam s v. A m er it ec h Svces

. , Inc. , 23 1 F .3 d 4 1 4 , 428 (7th C ir. 20 00 ); s e eal s o Gor don , 24 6 F
. 3d at 89 3, gr an ting the B oa rd su m m ar y jud gm en t on this cla im w as unw ar ra nt ed, and w e there f or e r eve rs e.
B . A D A Claim F i lar al so a ppea l s the di str i ctc o ur t ’ s o r der g r an t i ngthe B oa rd ’s m otion for su m m ar y jud gm en t as to h er failu re to acco m m odat e cl ai m u nd er the A m er i cans with Dis abi l i t i es A c t. T h e A D A p ro h ibits “d isc rim in at[io n ] ag ain st a q u alifi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a di sabi l i ty b ecause o fthe di sabi l i ty o f su ch i n d i v i d u a l i n r e g a r d t o . . . t e r ms , c o n d i t i o n s , a nd other privil eges of em p lo ym en t. ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 12112(a). Di sc r i m i na t i nga g ai ns ta “ qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dualwi th aN o. 07

- 1275 23 disabi l i ty” m eans, as i s r el evantt o Fi l ar ’ s cl ai m , not m aki ng a “r eas onabl e a ccom m odat i on” w here doi ng so woul d a l l o w a di sabl ed empl oyee to “ per f o r m the e ss en t i alfunct i ons of the em plo ym entposi t i on” w i thouti m posi n g an “u n d u e h ar d sh ip ” o n the em p loy er . See 4 2 U
. S
. C. §§ 1 21 12 ( b) ( 5) ( A) (re as o na bl e ac co m m o dat i o n a nd un due hard shi p); 12 111( 8) ( defi ni t i on o f“qual i fi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a di sa b i l i ty”)

. I n other w or ds, i fthe em plo yer can m ake reasonab l e ch an g es t o fea t ur es o fthe j o b o r the w ork env ironm en t so tha t a d isabled pers on ca n w ork sat i sf act or i l y, the em plo yer has t o m ake those change s. A s disc ussed, Fi l ar has an ar thri t i c hi p tha t m ake s w al kin g l ong dist ances diffi cul t
. A f t er Dr. Garve y di sp lac ed Filar from For em an to th e ro vin g c ad re of su b stit ut es, she re quest ed thatthe Boar d st affher at“o n e pl ace of w or k w ith m in im u m w alk in g d ista n c e f r o m p u b lic t ra nsport at i on, ” li st i ng F or em an H i gh S chooland three other accepta b le schoo l s. Lat er , the Boar d denied her r e qu e s tf o r a n a c c o mm o da t i o n. I n a l e t t er fr o m the ADA Ad m i ni str at o r i n the Hum an Reso ur ce s depa r t m en t , the B oard st ated that dis p la c e d cad re t each ers “m us t rep ort t o w h i c h e v e r s c h o o l th e S u b s t i t u t e C e n t e r a s s i g n s [ th e m] t o o n the da y tha t[ the y ] r ec eive the as si g nm en t
. ” H o w the ca dr e t e a c he r di d thi s wa s “ no ta ma t t e r f o r wo rk

- pla ce re as on ab le a c c om m od atio n .” T h e B oa rd als o s tated th a t, “as a res ultof the SchoolRef or m A ct , Cent ra l Offi ce c annot u n i l a t e r a l l y a s s i g n a n e mpl o y e e t o a s c h o o l a s a n a c c o mm o dat ion wi tho utthe a cc ept an ce a nd a ppr o va l o fthe p rin c ip al of th e re c eiv in g s c h oo l.” Fi l ar a rg ued bel ow thatthe Boar d shoul d have g ra nt ed he r r eq ue st, b utthe di str i ctco ur tdi sa g r ee d. I n di smi ss i ng Fila r’s d isa b ility cla i m , th e c ou rt h eld tha t Filar w as n ot a “qualified i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l i ty” because she had24 N o. 07

- 1275

n ot “a lleg e[d ] tha t th is h ip co nd i ti on s ubst antially p ro h ibits her fro m co nd uct i ng her j ob as a t eacher

. ” An d her “pr o xi m i ty t o pub l i c t r an spor t ati o n do es no ta f f ec tthe w ay i n whi c h s he t e a c he s Po l i s h i n he r c a pa c i ty as a su b stitu te tea c h er .” N ow on ap p eal, F ila r clai m s this w as error. W e affirm the distri ct cour t ’ s dism i ssa l of thi s cl ai m , though for d iffer en t rea so n s. T h e fa c t th at Fila r’s h ip co n d i ti o n d id n o t a ffect her abil ity t o t each , w hich the distri ct court c re d ited , d oe s n ot en d th e m atter ; s h e c an s till b e a “q u alified ind ivid u al w ith a d i s a b ility.” T h e A D A d efin es this term of ar t as a n “ in d ivid u al w ith a d isa b ility w h o, w it h orwi t houtre as onab l eac co m m odat i on , c an pe r f o r m the e s s e nti a l fun c t i o ns o fthe e mpl o y men tp o s i t i o n. ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2111 ( 8)

. A s the t ext in d icat es, thatan e m plo yee can “perform the es sent i alfunct i ons” ofa t eachi ng posi t i on d e s p i t e h e r d i s a b i l i ty a n d “ w i th o u tr e a s o n a b l e a c c o mm od ati o n” do es no t ex cl ude he r fr o m the defi ni t i o n of a “qual i fi e d ind i v i du a l wi th a di s a b i l i ty . ” T o p uti ta no ther way , a n “ un q u alifie d ind ivid u al w i th a d isa b ility” w ou ld be som eo ne wi th a di s a b i l i ty wh o c o ul d n o tdo the j ob n o ma t t e r wh a tth e e mp l o y e r d i d t o r e a s o n a b l y a c c o mm od ate
. See Ha m m el v. E a u G a lle C heese Fa cto ry , 40 7 F
. 3d 852, 862 (7th C ir. 2005). I n s t e a d , th e q u e s t i o n i s w h e th e r h e r r e q u e s t e d a c c o mm o dat i o n w as r ea so na bl e, a nd we do n’ tthi nki twas . The AD A d o e s n o te x h a u s t i v e l y d e fi n e a “ r e a s o n a b l e a c c o mm o dat i o n, ” tho ug h the t er m “may i nc l ude

. . . m aking e x i s ting fac iliti es u se d by em p loy ee s re ad ily ac c es sib le to a nd u s a b l e b y i nd i v i du a l s wi th di s a b i l i t i e s . ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 12 11 1( 9)(A)

. Be ca us e wal k i ngl o ngdi st an ce s fr o m the bus st op m akes i tdi f fi cul tt o acces s ce rt ai n schoo l s, Fi l ar ar gu es tha t he r re q u es t w as fo r s o m eth in g a kin to th isN o. 07

- 1275 25 type o facc om m odat i on. I n supp or to fher cl ai m , she ci t es t o thi s Cou r t ’ s dec i si o n i n EE O C v. Se ars R oe b uc k & C o. , 41 7 F
. 3d 78 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)

. I n Sears Ro eb uck , we held thatan em plo yer had notdone e nough t o m ake the di sabl ed em ployee’ s workst at i on a cces sibl e t o her. Due t o her disab i l i ty , the p l a i nti f fh a d p r o b l e ms wa l k i ngl o ngdi st ances. W hen one supervi sor t ol d her she c ou ld use a shor t cutthro ugh another departm en to r eati n a s t ock

ro om near her w or k s t at i on, a diff er entsuperv i sor w ou ld e ith er rescind the offer or discipline the plainti ff for he r acti ons . I n ad d it ion, Se a r s gave the plainti ffa p ar kin g s p ot re se rv ed for d isa b led em p l o y e e s , bu t itd id no thi ngt o s ho r t enhe r wal k t o he r wor k st ati o n. S o m ethi ng m or e, w e h eld , w as n ec es sa ry : “th es e w er e n ot re as on ab le acco m m odat i ons because they di d notco nsi stent l y o r eff ec t i ve l y make the Se ar s f ac i l i ty a cc es sibl e t o ” the pl ai nt i f f

. Re as o ni ngb y a na l o g y , F i l ar ur g es us t o r ea ch the sa m e co nc l us i o n h er e, s ay i ngtha the r wor kp lac e—any o ne o fthe sc ho o l s sh e woul d ne ed t o wor ki n o n a ny given day

— was s i m i l ar l y i na cc es sibl e unl es s ne ar a b us s t o p. A tthe hi ghestl evel o f abs t ra ct i on, Fi l ar ’ s cl ai m has som e s urf ace appeal

. I n addit i on t o the o bl i gat i ons discus se d i n Sears Ro eb uck , thi s Cou r tha s he l d tha tr ea ss i g nm en t t o a vacan t p osit ion can be pa rtof the em p loyer’ s ob liga ti on t o re aso nabl y a ccom m od ate
. SeeD ePa oli v. A bbott La bo rato ries , 1 40 F
. 3d 66 8, 675 (7t h Ci r . 1 99 8)

. W i tho ut k no wi ngthe pa r t i cul ar s o fthe Board ’s c adr e- as si g nm en t pol i ci es, Fi l ar m i ghtappear t o be r equesting justsuch a “r ea ss ign m en t,” on ly to a s p ec ific s u b se t of th e s c h oo ls in th e C hi cago Publ i c S chool s thatwould be “acce ssibl e” t o pub l i c t r an spo r t ati o n. Bu tthree as pect s o fthe r equestco nvi nce us thati twas j us t n o t rea son able. First, based on the requ irem en ts of a26 N o. 07

- 1275

c ad re su b stitu te , F i l ar ’s re q u es t w ou ld h av e a m ou n ted to prefer ent i alt re at m en t, wh i ch the A DA does notr equi re . W il liam s v. U nite d Ins

. Co
. of Am er ica , 253 F.3d 28 0, 28 2 (7 th Cir
. 20 01)

. The co l l ect i ve bar gai ni ng a greem entbetw een the Boar d and the Chic ago Teacher s Un i on r equi re s cad re t each ers t o be “con tinu ou sly avail able t o pe rform sub s t i t u t e s e r v i c e ” a n d t o “ a c c e p ta l l a s s i g n me n t s i n a ny an d e ve r y s ch o o l ” as the y b ec ame a va i l ab l e. U nde r the A DA , an “ em plo yer i s no tr equi re d t o gi ve th e d i sabl ed em p loy ee p re fer en tial tre a tm en t, as by

. . . w aiv in g h is nor m alr equi re m ent s f or the j ob i n quest i on. ” Wi l l ia ms , 25 3 F
. 3d at2 82
. Her e, F i l ar was i n e ss en ce r eq ue sti ngt o o pto ut o fthe c adr e- as si g nm en ts y st em; s he o nl y want ed “o ne pl ac e t o wor k ” and n o tt o b e subj ec t ed t o the f ar - r ea ch i ng ass ignm entsy st em appli cabl e t o cadre subst i t ut es, wh i ch m ay ha v e mad e a c c e s s t o the s c ho o l s di f fi c ul t
. N or w oul d she be “a vai l abl e” as a s ubst i t ut e i n the ev entthat sh e w as as sig n ed to a sc h oo l th at d id n ot fit h er req u es t. Thi s f all s w el l s ho r to fthe c adr e subs t i t ut es ’ o bl i g ati o ns a nd i s thu s mo r e tha n the ADA r e qu i r e s o fthe Bo a r d. Se cond, the Boar d did nothave the author i ty t o ass i gn a ca dr e s ubs t i t ut e t o “ o ne pl ac e t o wor k

. ” Under the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng ag re em ent , the Boar d i t sel fwas not re spon sible f or sl ot t i ng t eacher s a tparti cul ar scho ol s. I ns t ea d, the c adr e subs t i t ut e woul d b e “g i ve n the o ppo r t un ity to ap p l y a n d be inte rv iew ed for v ac an t po sition s.” A nd the pri nci pal co uld s el ecta m em ber o fthe cadre t o be a ful l

- t i m e subs t i t ut e “a t an y t i m e . . . t o fil l an exist i ng vacancy . ” The princi pal ’ s per sonneldeci sion s, as discus se d i n the pr ev i o us s ec t i o n, r es ul t ed l ar g el y f r o m the disc re t i on he or she enj oy ed. The Boar d coul d notr equir e a pri nci pal t o t ake a part i cul ar cadre subst i t ut e, as F i l a r r e qu e s t e d.N o. 07

- 1275 27 Finally, ev e n assu m ing tha t som ething cou ld be arra nged w i th Fi l ar under th e col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng ag re em ent , the adm i ni st ra t i ve burde n p os ed by Fi l ar ’ s r equest w ou ld h ave be en proh ibi tively w eighty. Th e plainti ff m ustm ake a p rim a f aci e s how i ng “thatthe acc om m odat i on i s r eas onabl e i n the se nse b oth ofeffi caci ou s an d of propor t i onal t o cos t s. ” O co nomow oc Re s i de nt ial Pr ogram s v. C ity o f M ilw a uk ee , 3 00 F
. 3d 77 5, 7 84 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)

. The i n i t i a l s h o win g ma d e b y F i l a r i n h e r r e q u e s tf o r a n a c c o mm o dat i o n was s i m pl y t o o b ar eb o ne s t o s ho w tha tthe re q u es t w as rea so n ab le. T h er e a re at lea st 65 5 p u b lic sch ool s i n the Chi ca g o Pub l i c S ch o o l s sy st em, i nc l udi ng 11 6 h i gh sc h oo ls. See CPS AtA Gl an ce , ht tp: // w w w . cps. k12

. i l

. us/A t A Glance

. ht m l ( l astvi si t ed M ay 14, 2008 )

. A n d the CTA has approxi m at el y 2 000 buses that o p e r a te ov er 15 4 ro u tes w ith 1 2,0 00 bu s s top s. See C T A Ov e r v i e w, h t t p : / / ww w. t r a n s i t c h i c a g o . c o m/ w elc om e/ ov er vie w .h tm l (las t visite d M ay 14 , 200 8). In he r requ es t for acc om m od ati on an d her ap p eal before thi s Court, Fi l ar has notgiven a ny i nd i cati on o fhow m an y o fthe 1 16 hi g h s ch o o l s woul d qua l i fy b es i des the f our thatshe l iste d i n her r equestf or an a ccom m odat i o n. Thus, the Bo ar d ha d the o pt i o n o fe i the r a ss i g ni ng her t o one ofthe f our schoo ls sh e request ed— i n vi ol at i on o f th e co l l ec t i ve b ar g ai ni nga g r ee m en t

— o r r es ea r ch i ng th o s e s c h o o l s i n th e C i ty th a ts a t i s fi e d h e r n e e d s —a cos t l y t ask

. N ei ther opt i on i s r easonabl e. Fo r al l these reason s, the distri ct court d id n ot e r r in rej ecti ng Fi lar’ s AD A c l a i m.
I I I . Concl usio n For the f or ego i ng r eas ons, we R EV ERSE the di st ri ct cour t ’ s o rder o fsum m ar y j ud gm entas t o Filar’s ag e28 N o. 07

- 1275 di s cri m i na t i o n c l a i m a nd A FFIRM the distri ct court’ s o r d e r o fs u mma r y j u d g me n ta s t o F i l a r ’ s d i s a b i l i ty c l a i m.

USCA- 02- C- 0072

— 5- 22- 08