The Honor abl e G. Pat ri c k M ur phy o fthe So uthe rnDis t ri c tof  I l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 10

- 2977 A M Y S I LV ERMAN, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. B OARD O F E DUC ATI ON O F T HE C ITY OF C HI CAGO, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C2220

—Blan ch e M. Mannin g, Judge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 18, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 21, 2011

Befo re T IND ER an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges , an d M UR PHY, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e . Am y S i l ve r m ans ue d the Board o fEdu cati on o fthe Cityo fChica go al l eg ing that the Boa rd fi rst d isc ri m i nated ag ai nst he r on the bas i s o f2 N o. 10

- 2977 he r pr egna nc y a nd the n r et al i at ed agai ns t he r f o r fi l i ng a c h a r g e w i th th e E q u a l E mp l o y me n tO p p o r t u n i t y C o mm i ssi on, bo th i n vi ol ati on of T itle V I Io fthe Civi l Ri ghts A ct of 1964 as am ended by the Pre gnancy Disc ri m i nati on Act. Fr om J uly20 04 unti l M ay 2005 , S i l ver m an worke d at L inco l n P ar kHi g h S ch o o l a s o ne o fs ev enpr o ba ti o na ry spe ci ale duca ti o n t ea ch er s whos e empl o y m en t co ntracts w ere su bj ect to an nu al rene w al. W he n th e Boa rd dec i ded to eli m i na te o ne s pec i ale duca ti o n t ea ch i ng posi ti on a t Li ncol n Parki n the spri ng o f20 05, scho ol pr i nc i pa l Be s s i e Ka r v e l a s c ho s e S i l v e r man, wh o was preg n an t at the ti m e. S i l ver m an fi l ed a c om pla i nt with the EEO C charg i ng tha t th e Boar d vi ol ate d Titl e VI Iby not re new i ng herco ntra ct b ecause she w as preg n ant. Tw o m onths l ate r, the B oa rd o ffer ed Si l ver m an a new p os i ti on t eachi ng auti sti c stud ents at the s am e s chool. Sil verm an accep ted this n ew pos iti on, but the B oard d ec id ed notto r enew her co ntra ct a t Li ncol n Parka seco nd ti m e in the sum m ero f20 06. A fterthe EE OC f ound rea sonab l e ca u se t o bel i eve that the Boa rd di scr i m i nated a gainsther, S i l ver m an bro ught sui t in the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i nois . Her fi r stc l ai m e ch o ed he r or i g i na l di sc r i m i na ti o n c o m pl aint to the EE O C, al l eging tha t the Boar d decided not to re new herco ntra ct i n M ay 2005 bec ause she was pre gnant. S i l ver m an al so claim ed that the Boa rd r eta l i ate d aga i nst he r f orhavi ng fi l ed a c harg e with th e E E O C by of fe r i ngh e r a mo r e di ffi c ul tp o s i t i o n f o r the 2 0 0 5- 2006 schoo l ye arand by not re new i ng herco ntra ct a fterthat sch ool year.N o. 10

- 2977 3 The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t to the B o a r d o n b o th c o u n t s , a n d th i s a p p e a l f o l l o we d

. We r ev i ew the di stri ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n de no vo , c o ns trui ng allf acts i n th e li gh t reason ably m ost fav orable to Si lverm an as the non- m oving par ty. S ee Ande rs on v. Li b e r ty L ob b y, Inc. , 4 77 U
. S

. 2 42 , 2 55 ( 19 86 )

. Ev eni n thi s l i g ht, we co nc lu d e t h at Silve rm an h as n otp re se n te d su fficie n t e vidence to defeatthe Boar d’s m oti on o n ei thero fhercl ai m s.

I. TheEEO C D e t e r m i nat i on Befo re dig gi ng i nto the m er i ts ofthe parti es’ ar gum ents, we a ddr es s fi r stthe di st r i ctc o urt’s tre at m en t o fthe E E O C ’s a d m in ist ra tiv e d et er m in at ion . A fte r in v e s tig a t i n g Silv er m an ’s c h ar ge s, th e E E O C fou n d rea so n ab le cause to bel i eve thatthe B oar d discr i m i nated ag ai nst Si l ver m an bec ause of h erpre gnancy and ret al i ate d aga i nst he r f orfi l i ng a disc ri m i nati on c h arge. S i l ver m an ar gues that the EEO C d ete rm i nation al one ought to sh ow that the d istri ct cou rt erred by grantin g sum m ary j ud gm ent t o the Boa rd. The di str i ct c ourt c h os e not t o co ns i derthe EEO C det er m i na ti o n in de ci di ngthe Bo a r d’ s mo t i o n f o r s ummar y j ud g men t
. We c o nc l ud e th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t a ct ed wel l wi th i n i ts di sc r et i o n, a nd pu rs uant to i ts obligat ion to m ake a de novo deci si on on the pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m s. W e he l d i n Tullos s v. N ear N orth M ontes soriSchool, Inc. , 776 F. 2d 150, 152- 54 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) , thatthe dist ri ct j ud ge, as f act- fi nd er, has “gr eatdi screti on” i n the tr eat
me n t o fa n E E O C r e a s o n ab l e c a u s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n . We e xp l a i ne d tha tCo ng r e s s r ej e c t e d a p ro po s a l t o p r o v i de4 N o. 10

- 2977

Strictly spe ak ing , an E E O C d eterm i n atio n is hea rsay ifit i s 1 of fered to prov e the t ruth ofth e fi nd ing. The Sup rem e Court ha s i nd i c a t e d tha ta de t e r m i na t i onc a n f a l l wi thi n the e x c e pt i on i n Fe der al Rul e of Evide nc e 80 3( 8) ( C) f or “f ac t ual fi ndi ngs re s ul t i ng fro m ani nve s t i gat i on m ade pur s uan tt o a uthority grant e d b y l a w, un l e s s the s ou r c e s o fi nfor m a t i ono r o the r ci rcum st ances i nd ic ate lac k oftr ustwo rthines s. ” See C han dle r v. R o u debu sh , 42 5 U .S. 840 , 86 3 n .39 (197 6). A d m issibility und er Rule 803( 8) ( C) does not ans w er ques ti ons ofprej ud ic e, confusi on, and w ast e ofti m e und er Rule 403. o nl y de fer en ti alj udi ci al re vi ew t o EEOC fi ndi ng s, a nd chose i ns t e a d t o g i v e the pa r t i e s a r i g ht t o de novo review by d ist r ict courts of th e m erits ofcha rging p artie s’ d isc rim in at ion cla im s, s o t h at “t h e fa c t-fin d er is a di str i c t j ud ge ra therthan an adm i ni str ati ve age ncy hear i ng o ffi cer . ” Id. at15 2, ci ti ng H
. R. Rep. N o. 92

- 238, at 58- 63. W e a l so obs er ved thatthe n ee d for di scr eti on wa s “ e v e n mo r e i mp o r t a n t ” i n th e c o nt e x to fc l a i ms tr i ed to a j ury i n l i ght o fthe gr eater r isks o fprej ud i ce, m isin te rp re ta tio n, an d d ela y. Id. at15 3 n. 2. ( I n 199 1, after Tullo ss w as deci ded , Congr es s am ended Titl e VI Ito provi de f orj ury tr i al s in case s l i ke Si l verm an ’s. S ee 42 U .S.C . § 19 81 a ( c ) , en ac te d as se c tio n 10 2 o f th e C ivil R igh ts A c t o f 19 91 , Pu b . L . N o. 10 2-1 66 .) 1 W he th era n EEOC de te r m i na ti o n i s i n f av o r of a ch arging p arty or a respon d en t, a d istri ct j ud ge or j ury ca nnot ev al ua te the wei g hti t des er ve s, i fa ny, wi th o ut unde r st an di ngwhate vi den ce was pr ese nt ed to the E E O C an d w h et h er t h a t e vid en c e is p ro p er ly a d m iss ible in c ou rt . Se e, e . g. , Tullo ss , 7 76 F
. 2d at1 54

- 55 ( des cr ibingN o. 10

- 2977 5 prej ud i ci aland i nadm i ssibl e co nten ts o fEEO C i nvest i gati ve fi l e)

. Tha t sort of eff o r t wi l l r ar ely a dd m ucht o the p ro b at ive va lu e o f th e a d m iss ible ev i d en c e t h at is actual l y s ubm i tte d to the c ourto r j ury f ora de novo de c i s i o n o n the mer i ts. S ee Le wis v. Ci ty of Chi cago Poli ceD epar t m e nt, 5 90 F
. 3d 42 7, 4 42 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( co nc l ud i ng di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t ab us e i t s di s c r eti on by ex clud ing E E O C reason able cau se de term ination); Young v. Jam es Gree n M ana gem ent, Inc. , 32 7 F
. 3d 616, 623 -25 (7 th Cir

. 20 03) ( affi rm i ng deci si on t o excl ud e E EO C find i ngs of discrim ination from eviden ce in j ury trial)

. S i l v e r ma n c o n t e n d s w i th o u te x p l a na t i o n th a ts o me evi denti ar y m ate ri alava i l abl e t o th e EEO C w as not avai l abl e t o the di str i ct c ourt
. A s the di str i ct cour t obser ved, however, the parti es had e ve ryo pp or tuni ty to p re se n t t h eir fu ll c a se , in c lu d in g e vid en c e o ffer ed in the EEO C procee dings , i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. The di str i ct co ur t di d no t ab us e i ts discret io n in de ci di ngtha t th e EE OC deter m i nati on w as notpro bati ve i n i ts anal ysi s. Forthe sam e r eas on, nei theri s i t pr obat i ve i n our s. W e pr oce ed to the m er i ts ofS i l ver m an’ s cl ai m s.

II. The Clai m of

Pr egnan cyD i s cr i m i nat i on Ti tl e VI Io fthe Ci vi l Ri g ht s Act o f 19 64 m ak es i t unl awful f oran e m plo yerto di schar ge oro ther w i se disc ri m i nate aga i nst a n em p l oye e be cause ofthatper son’ s s ex. S ee 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e -2( a) ( 1)

. The Pre gnancy Disc ri m i nati on A ct o f19 78, Pub. L. N o. 95

- 555, added a defi n ition to 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e ( k) to m ake cl earthat“di scr i m i nati on6 N o. 10

- 2977 base d on a w om an’ s pre gnancy i s, on i ts f ace, di scr i m i natio n be c au se of h er se x .” Ne wpor tNe ws Shipb ui l ding & Dry Do c k C o . v . EE OC, 46 2 U.S

. 66 9, 68 4 ( 1983 )

. A s with othe r Tit l e VI Icl ai m s, a pla i nti ff m ay p ro ve pregnancy d isc ri m i nati on e i therdi re ctl y o r i nd i re ctl y. S ee Gri f f i n v . Sis te rs of St

. Francis, Inc. , 489 F.3d 8 3 8 , 8 4 4 ( 7th Cir. 2007). To a vo i d s um m ar y j udg m en t unde r the di r ec t appr o ac h, the pl ai nti ffm ust p roduce suffi ci ent e vi dence, ei ther d i re ct o r ci rcum sta nti al, to cr eat e a tr i abl e quest i on o f i nt en tionaldi sc r i m i na ti o n in the e m pl o y er ’ s dec i si o n. M i l l e rv. Am e r i ca n F am i l y M ut ual Ins uranc eCo. , 203 F. 3d 99 7, 10 05 (7t h C ir. 20 00 ); G ei erv. M edtronic, Inc. , 99 F. 3d 238, 24 1 ( 7th Ci r. 1996)

. A pl ai nti ffal so m ay proce ed und erthe i nd i re ct, bu rden- shi fti ng m etho d adapted f r o m M cD o nn ell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 41 1 U.S

. 79 2, 802 ( 1973 )

. Li ke the di str i ct c ourt, we concl ud e that Si l ver m an di d not pre sent suffi ci ent e vi dence und er ei th era ppr o ac h t o de fea t th e Bo ar d’ s m o ti o n.

A. The D i r e ctM e t hod To succe ed und erthe dir ec t m etho d, Si l ver m an m ust offe r eit h e r d i r ec t e vid en c e t h at w ou ld p ro ve th e fa c t in questi on

— th e di sc r i m i na to r y i nt en t

— w i thout re l i ance on in fer en c e or p re su m p tio n, Venture ll i v. AR CCo m m unity Service s, Inc. , 3 50 F
. 3d 59 2, 5 99 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) , o r “ a co nvin c in g m os aic ” o f circ u m s ta n tia l ev id en c e t h at w ou ld al l o w a j ur y t o i nferi nt en ti o na l di sc r i m i na ti o n b y the deci si onm ake r. S ee Coff m an v. Indi anap ol i s Fi r eD epar t m e nt, 57 8 F
. 3d 55 9, 5 63 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , quo tingPhe l an v. Cook C ounty, 463 F.3d 77 3, 77 9 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); D avi s v. Con- WayN o. 10

- 2977 7

S ilv er m a n as se rt s w ith o u t an y ci ta tio n o r e la b o ra tio n th a t “ [i]t 2 i s cl e a r th a t[ p r i n c i p a l ] Ka r v e l a s t r e a t e d a l l th e o th e r no npre gna nt[ pro bat i onary t ea c he rs ] be t t erthanSi l ver m an, al l of whom s he r en ew ed. ” Th i s bar e as s er t i on i s pl ai nl y i ns uffi c i en t to defeat the Bo ard’ s m otio n . S il verm an prese nts no evidence “w he the r or no t rigo ro u sl y sta tistical, tha t em p loy ees sim ilarly situate d to [ h e r ] .
. . rece iv ed system atica lly b etter trea tm ent. ” Troupe, 20 F. 3d at 736. Tho ugh the other special ed u cat i on pro b ationa ry t ea c he rs ’ c ont ra c t s wer e re ne wed f or the (co n tin u ed ...) Transport ation Central Ex pre ss, Inc. , 3 6 8 F
. 3 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )

. S i l v e r man ha s no di r e c t e v i de nc e o f i ntent to disc rim inate aga i nst he r on the bas i s o fpre gna nc y, s o s he r el i es o n the l at te r a ppr o ac h. A pl ai nt i ffusi ng the “co nvi nci ng m osa i c” a pp ro ach to prove a disc ri m i nati on cl ai m und er the dir ect m ethod m ay prese nt anyo fthr ee bro ad types o fcirc um sta nti al evi dence. The fi rs t type in c l ud es “suspi ci ous t i m i ng, am biguou s state m en ts oral or w ritten, beh avior to w ard orco m m ents dire c te d ato therem plo yee s in the protect ed gr oup, and other bi ts and piec es fro m wh i ch an in fer en c e o f d isc rim in at or y in te n t m igh t b e d ra w n .” Tro u p e v . M a y Dep a r t me n t S t o r e s Co. , 20 F. 3d 734, 73 6 ( 7th Cir

. 19 94)

. S i l ver m an r el i es p rinci pal l y o n thi s type o f ev i den ce , a nd i t wi l l b e th e f o cus o fo ura tt entio n. The seco nd ty pe i s e vid en ce s how i ng tha t the em plo yer “sys te m at i ca l l y t r ea te d o th er, s i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed, no np re gn an t e m p loy ee s b et te r.” Ven turel li, 35 0 F
. 3d at 60 1. Silv e r m an offe re d n o p ot en tia lly p ro b at ive ev idence of thi s type. Final l y, the thi rd ty pe ofci rcum sta nti al 28 N o. 10

- 2977

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 f oll ow ing sch ool year, Si lverm an has notoffered evidence thatthe Boar d or Karve l as r eg ul ar l y a nd repe at edl y tr ea t ed n onpregnant prob ati onary teac hers bett er than pregnan t prob ation ary teach ers. Si l ver m an insis t s thatthe Boar d s t i pul at ed be f or e the 3 di s t ri c tc our tthats he ha d pro vena pri m a f ac i e c as e underthe di re c tm ethod. She c i t es the Boar d’ s m em or andum an d rep ly a ttach ed to its su m m a r y jud g m en t m otio n in w hich it st ipulate d for the pu rposes ofs um m ary j ud gm en t that Sil verm an had dem onst rat ed a prim a facie cas e ofdisc ri m inat i on. W e ar e not p ersuaded. Al thoughthe Boar d did n ot sp e c i fy th a t i t s st i p u l a t i o n w a s a r e sp o n se o n l y t o S i l v e r m a n ’s ar gum en tr eg ar di ng the i ndi re c tm ethod, thi s s t i pul at i on m ake s s en s e onl y with r es pec tt o the i ndi re c tm ethod ofpr oof disc uss ed b el ow . Because the dir ectm ethod ofproof involves no burde n s h i ft i n g , s u c h a c o n c e s s i o n wo u l d wi p e o u tthe Bo ard’ s sum m a ry j ud gm ent m oti on w ith res pect t o Sil verm a n ’s d isc ri m in a tio n cla im
. (co n tin u ed ...) e v i de nc e i s e v i de nc e tha tthe p l a i nt i ffs uffe r e d a n a dver se em plo ym ent a cti on and that the em plo yer ’ s j usti fi cati on i s pre textual

. S ee id

. Cf. Troup e, 20 F. 3d at 736 ( desc r ibingthe thi r d ty pe o fe vi den ce a s ev i den ce tha t th e pl aint i ffw as pas se d o ve r o r r epl ac ed bya no th er, a nd tha tthe e mpl o y e r ’ s j us t i fi c a t i o n wa s p r e t e xtua l )

. T hi s ty pe ofev idence i s s ubstanti al l y the sa m e a s the ev i dence re quir ed to p ro ve disc ri m i nati on under the i nd i re ct m etho d, so w e a dd re ss Si l ver m an’ s a tte m p t to show prete xt i n that conte xt be l ow. Se e H uf f v

. UAR CO , Inc ., 122 F.3d 374, 380 (7th Cir. 1997). 3N o. 10

- 2977 9

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 W e ha v e no ted tha t the focu s of the d i r e c t m e tho d is whethe r the e vi denc e “poi nt s di re c t l y to a di s c ri m i nat or y r ea s on f or the em ployer’ s act ion. ” A tanu s v. P erry, 52 0 F .3d 6 62 , 67 1 (7th Cir. 2008) ( quotati on m arks om it ted)

. O nce a plaint iffprod uces s uc h e vi denc e, the defen dant ’ s sum m ar y j udgm en tm ot i on ne c es s ar i l y m ust fail , i n c ont ra s tt o the bur den- s hi ft i ng a p p ro a ch o f th e i n d ir ec t, M cDonn el l Dougl as m eth od

. T h u s, it is relativ ely un u sua l to em p loy th e term “p rim a facie case” in the c ont ex tofthe di re c tm ethod, s ee ge ne ra l l y Geor g Nils H er l i t z , The M eaning of t he Term “P ri m a Fa ci e”, 5 5 Lo ui s i a na L. R ev. 391, 395- 97 ( 1994) ( describing the h ist o ric use ofthe te rm and i t s l ongs t andi ng m ea ni ng) , though we have us ed the p h ra se o ccas ional ly, s ee D ar chakv. C i ty of C hi cago Boar d of E d u ca t i on , 580 F. 3d 622, 632 ( 7th Cir

. 2009) ( determ ini ng that the pl ai nt i ffha d es t abl i s hed a p ri m a f ac i e c as e ofr et al i at i on u n d er th e d ir ec t m et h o d ); S ylvest er v. SO S C hil dren ’s Vil l ages Il l i noi s, Inc. , 45 3 F .3d 90 0 , 90 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 6 ) (sam e). H ere, the B oa rd clearly con tested Sil v erm an ’ s arg u m en ts u nd er bo th the di re c tan d i ndi re c tm ethods

. I toffer ed i ts s t i pul at i on i n r efer en c e onl y t o the pr i m a f ac i e el em en t s ofthe i n d i r e c tm e th o d . T o a p p l y th e st i p u l a t i o n to S i l v e r m a n ’s s um m ar y j udgm en t a rg um en tonthe di re c tm ethod o fpr oof w ou ld m ak e no sense at a ll. A s t o her “bi ts and piec es” evi dence, S i l ver m an r el i es on a sta tem ent m ade by pri nci pal K ar vel as, al on g w ith co nfl i ct i ngt es ti m o ny r eg ar d in gwhenKar ve l as f o und o utS i l ve r m anwas pr egna nt, a nd s us pi ci o us ti m i ng o fthe no n- r en ewa l o fS i l ve r m an ’ s co nt r ac t. Ev enunde r the s ummar y j ud g men ts t a nd a r d, we a r e n o tp e r s ua de d.10 N o. 10

- 2977 S i l v e r ma n p o i n t s fi r s tt o h e r t e s t i mo n y ab o u ta c o mm ent m ade byKarvel as i n the spri ng o f20 05 w hen S i l ve r m ani nqu ir ed ab o utmate r ni tyl ea ve a fte r no ti fy i ng th e s c h oo l of h er p re gn an c y. K ar ve las rep lied , “I on ly t o o ko ne we e kf o r ma t e r ni t y l e a v e . Bu ty o u, honey , sh ou ld take as l ong as you w an t to. ” C ont rary to Si lverma n’ s a s s e r t i o n s , K a r v e l a s ’ s c o mme n td o e s n o tc o me cl ose to im p lyin g that Karve l as i n any w ay disa pp ro ved ofS i l ver m an’ s pre gnancy orherr equest f orm ate rni ty lea ve , an d it is ev en fart h er from su b st an tia t i n g h er cla im that her contr act w as not re new ed beca use o fherpre gnancy. Kar ve l as ’ s co m m en t i s no t an al o g o us t o a ny o fthe sta tem ents m ade by e m plo yer s in the case s S i l ver m an ci te s. In D ar ch ak v. City of Chic ago Board of E du ca t i on , 58 0 F
. 3d 62 2, 6 27( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , a p rin ci palc al l ed th e pla i nti ff

- tea chera “stup i d Pol ack. ” The D ar ch akprinc ipal’s ex pl i ci t epi th etwas di r ec t ev i den ce o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Inth e a b s e n c e o f sa rc as m , of w h ich th er e is n o e viden ce , Kar ve l as ’ s st at ementdo es no t ev ena ppr o ac h a di spa r agem en t o fS i l ve r m ano r he r pr egna nc y . In D uncan v. Fle et w ood M otor Hom es o f Indiana, Inc. , 51 8 F
. 3d 486, 490 ( 7th Ci r. 2008 ) , an em plo yeral l ege dlyco m m ented that the o l der work er s “ no l onge r coul d do m any thi ngs, ” e ven th o ug h the pl aintif f, a g e fi fty
- o ne , was pe r f o r m i ng the e sse nti alfuncti ons ofhi s j ob. That e m p loyer ’ s g ener al state m en t un equivoc ally beli ttled ol d er w o r k e r s . K a r v e las’s sta tem ent, byco ntra st, encou ra ged S i l ver m an to ta ke as much t i m e o ffa s sh e ne ede d a fte r g i vingb i r th

. W here an a m biguous com m ent i s m ade with a to ne o f sa r ca sm o r en m i ty, a co ur t m ay at tr ibut e g r ea ter w eightN o. 10

- 2977 11
to a n a lleg ed d isc rim in at or y in fer en c e. Se e, e . g. , Has ham v. Ca l i f o r n i a S t a t eBo a r d o

f Eq u a l i zat i on , 20 0 F
. 3d 1035 , 10 44, 1 0 5 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o ncl ud i ngtha ta c o mm e ntma de w ith a d em ea n in g t on e ra ise d qu es ti o n s r eg ar d in g c re d ibi l i ty)

. But w here , as her e, S i l ver m an has not al l ege d an y s ar ca st i c, de m ean ing, o r de r i si ve t o ne , we ta k e th e com m ent a t i ts f ace value. Thi s o ne does notr efl ect any di scr i m i nator y a ni m us. S i l v e r man a l s o mai nt a i ns tha t a j ur y c o ul d i nfe r di sc rim i n at or y in te n t b as ed on K ar ve las ’s c on flict in g t es tim ony about exactl y when s h e l ear ned that Si l ver m an w as pregnant. The Boar d adm i tte d i n the EEO C proceedi ngs ( and m ai ntai ned bef or e the di str i ct c ourt ) that Si l ver m an in f or m ed K ar vel as ofherpre gnancy i n or ar o und Mar ch2 00 5. In h erde po siti on n ea r l y f o ur yea rs afterthe i nci dent, however, Karvel as tes ti fi ed th a ts h e “ h a d n o i d e a th e gi r l was p r e g n a n t ” a tth e t i me she c hose notto r enew her em p loym ent, o n M ar ch 29, 20 05
. Ye t S i l ve r m anhe r se l fc o ul d no t r ec al l the dat es a nd co nt ex t o fhe r no ti fi ca ti o n. S he fi r sttestifi ed th ats he noti fi ed K ar vel as she was pre gnant on M ar ch 16, 20 05. Later, S i l ver m an st ate d that s he fi rs t t old Karvel as on M ar ch 8. These f actuali ssues ar e not m at er i alto Sil verm an ’s cl aim
. A da ta p rintou t from the B oard ’s e mpl o y men tma na g e men ts y s t e m i nd i c a t e d tha t, r e g a r dles s o f w h i c h d at e is co rre c t, ev en aft er Silve rm an to ld her ofthe pregnancy, Karvel as d ec i ded to r e n e w Sil verm an’ s co ntra ct. The e l ectr oni c reco rds s how thatKarvel as m ar ked S i l v e r man ’ s fi l e f o r r e ne wa l o n b o th M a r c h 17 a nd Mar c h 2 8
. On l y l a t e r, o n M a r c h 2 9 , di d Ka r v el as c h oo se n ot t o re n ew S i l ver m an’ s co ntra ct when12 N o. 10

- 2977 prom pted by the Board t o el i m i nate one speci aleducati on po si ti o n. Fi nal l y, S il ver m an co ntends thati t was suspi ci ous for K arv el as to deci de not to re new herco ntra ct tw o or thre e weeks aftershe had noti fi ed hero fher pre gnancy an d tha t thi s ti m i ngs uppo r ts a n infer en ce tha t th e B oar d’ s m o ti ve was di sc r i m i na to r y . Thi s ar g um en t su ffer s f r o m t wo pr i nc i palfl aws . F i r st, s us pi ci o us t i m i ng a l o n e i s r a r e l y s u ffi c i e n tto de f e a ta mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent. S ee C ole v. Il li nois , 562 F .3d 812, 81 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)

. As we e m pha si ze d i n C ole, “m er e t em pora l proxi m i ty i s no t e n ou gh to e stabl i sh a genui ne i ssue of m ate ri alf act, ” i d. , quoti ng A nd o nissa m y v . Hew lett-P a ck a rd Co. , 547 F.3d 841 , 851 (7th C ir . 2008), an d here, plaintiff ha s n o thingmo r e tha n we a kp r o xi m i ty atb e s t
. S e c o nd , as we ha ve no te d, S i l ve r m an ’ s cl ai m i s fur th erc o ntrad icted by the com p ut er record s from the B oard ’s em p loy m en t s yst em sho w i ng be yond r eas onable d i s p u t e th a tK a r v e l a s c h o s e t o r e n e w S i l v e r ma n ’ s e mplo ym ent a fterl ear ni ng she was pregnant. T a k e n s e p a r a t e l y o r t a k e n t o g e th e r, K a r v e l a s ’ s c o mm ent, the confl i cti ng dates r ega rdi ng wh en Karvel as f ound out S i lverm an was pregnant, and the ti m i ng o f he r non -renew al do not reach th e thres hold nec essary f o r S i l ve r m ant o de fea t th e Bo ar d’ s m o ti o n.

B. The Indi r e ctM e t hod Si l ver m an ar gues that she a l so has s uffi cien t evi dence to show pregnancy disc rim i nati on usi ng the i nd i re ctN o. 10

- 2977 13

m eth od , w hich requ ires her first to offer evid en ce of a pr i m a f ac i e ca se tha t: ( 1) s he was pr egna nta nd the Board knew she w as pregnant; ( 2) she was per f or m i ng her du ti es sat i sf acto ri l y; ( 3) she suffer ed an a dvers e e m plo ym en t ac ti o n; a nd ( 4) si m i l ar l y s i tu at ed no n- pr egna nt em p loy ee s w er e t re at ed m or e fa vo ra b ly. C la y v . Ho ly C ross H os pi t al , 253 F.3d 100 0, 1005 ( 7 t h Cir. 2001). T he Boa rd ag r ee d f o r pur po se s o fs um m ar y j udg m en t th atSi lverm an coul d m eet that burden. The burden th en sh i fted to the B oard to arti cu late a l egitim ate, non -discrim inatory r ea so n f o r fi r i nghe r . Af ter t he Bo ar d pr o vi ded a r ea so n, Si l ver m an co uld s urvi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent o nl y b y offer i ng ev i dence th at the Boa rd’ s r eas on was a prete xt, whi chpe r m i ts a n infer en ce o funlaw fuldi sc r i m i na ti o n. Id. S i l ver m an m ake s tw o prete xt arg u m en ts, nei thero f w hi ch i s co nvi nci ng.

1. Evalu at i ons i n theSp r i ng of 20 05 The Bo ar d a rgue s tha t S i l ve r m anwas s el ec te d f o rno nr e n e wa l i n 2 0 0 5 b e c a u s e s h e wa s th e l e a s t e ffe c t i v e o ft he p ro b at ion ar y s p ec ial ed u c at ion te ac h er s a t t h e s c h oo l. T o sup p ort this assertion, the B oard offers K arvelas’s tes ti m ony an d h er co ntem pora neous w ri tte n note s r egar ding Si l ver m an’ s t each in g. In Feb ruar y 2 005, Karvel as stop p ed by the classroom s of each of th e pro bation ary tea cher s work i ng with speci aleducati on s tu d en ts to obs er ve thei r tea ch in g. K ar vel as tes ti fi ed that du ring a vi si t to S i l ve r m an ’ s cl assroo m s he no ti ce d a s tu den t w ear i ng hea dp hones and listeni ng to a W al km an du ring the l ess on. H ero b ser vati on not es i nd i cate d that14 N o. 10

- 2977 S i l ve r m anwas s i m pl y “ standi ng ” r athe r tha n e ng ag i ng w i th the s t ud e ntwh i l e thi s o c c ur r e d. S i l v e r mandi s pu tes thi s descr i pti on, st at i ng i n heraffi davi t that s he neve r saw a s tudent w ear i ng hea dp hones orusi ng a W al km an dur i nga l es so n. K ar vel as al so tes tified that duri ng herper i odi c walk s thro ugh the h al l s o fthe schoo l, she noti ced thatano ther of Sil verm an ’s classes, co-tau gh t w ith an oth er te a c he r, w as “al w ays r owd y. ” Karve l as stat ed that, acc or ding to he r no te s, o n o ne o cc as i o n s he had t o s to p t o r epr i m an d the c l ass bec ause the s tudents w er e v er y l oud and exhibi ted “uncontr ol l abl e be havi or . ” S i l ver m an deni ed that an y of h e r c las se s e n ga ge d in “ u n c on tr olla b le b eh av ior,” th o ug h s he a dm i tt ed th at Kar ve l as s to pped to r epr i m an d her cl ass . The dis tr i ct cou rtco ncl ud ed, and w e a gr ee, that Si l ver m an’ s di sag re em ent with K ar vel as’ s e val ua tion do es no t pr esen t a g en ui ne i ss ue o fmate r i alf ac t ab o ut the r easons forthe Board’ s deci si on notto r enew her contr act. Though the Board adm its Si l ver m an per f or m ed wel l e n o u g h t o me e tth e e x p e c t a t i o n s o fh e r j o b , the si tuati on chang ed w hen K ar vel as w as tol d she had to choos e o ne o fthe proba ti onar y s peci aleducati on tea cher s fornon- re new al. That si tuati on m ake s thi s ca se d i ffe r e n tfr o m D unc an v. Fl e e t wood M ot orHom e s of Indi ana , th e case on w hi chS i l ve r m anr el i es . In D unc an , th e e mpl o y era r g ue d both tha t th e empl o y ee was pe r f o r m i ng up to i ts expectat i ons, and al so that he was una bl e t o m eetthe physi caldem ands ofthe j ob. W e hel d that th o se c o ntr adi ct o r y po si ti o ns c o ul d no t wi th st an dN o. 10

- 2977 15

scr uti ny and co ncl ud ed the em plo yer ’ s s tat ed re aso n coul d be deem ed pret extual

. 51 8 F
. 3d at 491. H er e, by con trast, the B oard h a s n ot ad van ced a contra d ictory r a t i o n a l e f o r i t s d e c i s i o n n o tto r e ne w S i l v e r ma n ’ s e mpl o y m en t. In l i g hto fthe di ffi cul t fi na nc i alsituati o n, K ar vel as w as re quir ed to se l ect on e s peci aleducati on te ac h er for n on -re n ew al. T h e B oa rd ’s p os iti o n th at all th e te ac hers, i nc l udi ngS i l ve r m an, wer e m ee tingthe Board’ s e xpectati ons, but that Silv er m an was the l eas t effecti ve am ong them , i s no t inter nal l y inconsi ste nt. Si l ver m an’ s a rgum ent that the Boar d’s posi ti on “evo l ved” be tw een the EEO C procee dings and the proceedi ngs in t h e d i str i ct c ourtl i kewis e doe s no t g et her very far. Si lverm an takes th e po siti on th at th e E E O C ’s r ea so nabl e ca us e det er m i na ti o n mustb e aff o r ded co nside r a tion bec au se it m akes d iscrep an cies i n th e B oard ’s ar gum ent m or e s alien t and herar gum ent m or e cr edibl e. T he EEO C’ s det er m i na ti o n i ts el f, s ta tingo nl y tha t th e agency f o und r ea so nabl e ca us e o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n a nd r et al i at i o n, i n n o ways ho ws a ny e vo luti o n in the Board’ s pos i ti on o r its ar gum ents. Insof aras S i l ver m an i ntends to ar gue that the Boar d’s position change d between the proce edi ngs b efor e th e EE OC and thos e be f o r e th e di st r i ct cou rta nd tha t su cha c ha ng e co nsti tutes ev i dence ofpre text, she prese n ted ev i dence to th at effect in th e d istri ct cou rt by offering the Boa rd ’s EEOC po si ti o n st at ement s. Altho ug h i n so m e ca ses o ne ca n “ r ea so nabl y i nferpr et ex t f r o m a n e m pl o y er ’ s sh i fting ori nc onsis tent expla nati ons f orthe chal l enged e m plo ym ent deci si on, ” Appe l b aum v. M i l wauke eM e t r opol i t an Sewerage D is tr ict, 3 40 F
. 3d 57 3, 579 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) , the16 N o. 10

- 2977 d istri ct cou rt did not fi n d a ny cha ng e in the B oard ’s posi ti on here to be i nconsi ste nt, and nei therdo we. M or eove r, as the B oa rd poi nts o ut, bo th par ti es’ ar gum ents ev olv ed ov er th e c ou rs e o f th ei r d isp u te , as fre q u en tly o cc ur s i n l i ti g at i o n. S i l ve r m ana l so c o nt en ds th atthe pa r ti es ’ c o nfl i ct i ng f actualacc ounts show a ge nu i ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act. She ass erts that K ar vel as i napp ro pri ate l y b ase d her j udg m en t o n o ne o r t wo inc i den ts s he o bs er ve d dur i ng w hi ch she not ed t h at Si l ver m an was not engag ed w i th the s tudent s or n ot i n contr olo fthe cl ass ro om . A ccor ding to Si l ver m an, hercl ass ro om m anner w as appropr i at e. Ba sed o n thi s di spu te , S i l ve r m ana r g ue s th atthe B oa rd ’s m ot ion sh ou ld h av e b ee n d en ied . W e a ga in di sa g r ee . Ta k i ngS i l ve r m an ’ s acc o unta s true

— that K ar vel as’ s a ccount i s wrong and th at her note s were not s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y th e e v e n t s a tth e t i me

— Si l ver m an has sti l l f ai l ed to offe r evi dence thatthe re aso n gi ven by th e Bo ar d was di sh o nest. T o de fea t th e Bo ar d’ s m o ti o n, sh e m us t po int to evide nc e s u ggestin g tha t the Boa rd i ts el fdi d no t g i ve a n h o ne ste xpl an at i o n o fi ts r ea so n. S i l v e r ma n ’ s a r g u me n ti s l i k e m a n yth a ta r i s e i n e mplo ym en t di scr i m i nati on ca ses wh er e the em plo yee disa gr ees with a n em plo yer ’ s negat ive ass ess m ent o f th e em p loy ee ’s p er for m an c e. Se e, e . g. , Ptas znik v. St
. Jos eph H os pi t al , 4 64 F
. 3d 69 1, 6 97

- 98 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( ac ce pting empl o y er ’ s no n- di sc r i m i na to r y j us ti fi ca ti o n o fi nexc u sa b le pe rfo rm an c e an d c on c lu d in g th at a cou rtsh ou ld not “interfere i n e m p loym en t d ecisions sim p ly w he re [it] b elie ve [s] a n em p loy er h as m ad e a p oo r c h oic e” ). I fN o. 10

- 2977 17

su ch d isag reem en ts w ere enou gh to avoid su m m ary j u d g me n t a n d g o t o t r i a l o n a n i n d i r e c t p r o o f c a s e , s u mm ary j udg m en t woul d b ec o m e ex tinc t an d e m pl o y er ’s evaluati ons ofem p loy ees would be supp l anted by fed er alj uri es’ ev al uati ons. W e hav e s ai d i n substa nce m or e t i m es than we can co unt that w hen an e m plo yer ar ti cul at es a pl au sibl e, l eg alr ea so n f o r di sc ha r g i ngthe pla i nti ff, “i t i s no t o ur pro vi nce to deci de w hetherthat r ea so n was wi se , f ai r, o r e ve n c o r rect, ul ti m at ely, s o l o ng as it tru ly w as th e re as on for t h e p lain t i ff’s t er m in at ion .” G iannopo ulos v. B rach & B ro ck C onfect ions, Inc. , 10 9 F
. 3d 40 6 , 4 11 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ); ac c or d , e . g. , St oc kwel l v. Ci ty of Ha rvey, 59 7 F.3d 89 5, 90 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( noti ng tha t su bj ec tive e va l ua ti o ns o fj o b ca ndi dat es a r e co ns i st en t w i th T itle V II); St ephe ns v. Er i cks on , 56 9 F
. 3d 779, 78 8 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ) (rec og n i z i n g t h a t t h e ro le of t h e c ou rtis not to se con d -gues s em p loyers’ bu siness j ud gm en ts); P tasznik, 464 F.3d at 6 9 7 ( “W e d o not sit as a sup er-pers o n n e l d e p a r t me ntwi th a u th o r i t y t o r e v i e w a n e mplo yer ’ s business deci si on”) , quoti ng Ball anc ev. Ci ty of Springfi el d, 424 F.3d 614 , 621 (7th C ir. 2005). N ev er thel ess , an e m plo yer ’ s neg ati ve evaluati on o f th e p lain tiff’s p er for m an c e is n otalw ay s t h e la st w or d . I f the pl ai nt iffcan ra i se a g enui ne i ssue about the ho nesty, not m er el y t h e ac curacy, o fthe em plo yer ’ s s tat ed eva l uati on, the case m ay need to b e tr i ed. A n em plo yee “m ay demons tr ate tha t th e empl o y er ’ s r ea so ns a r e unwor th y o f cred en ce th roug h ev iden ce sh ow ing (1) th at th e proffer ed re aso ns had n o basi s in f act, ( 2) thatthe proffer ed re as on s d id n ot ac tu ally m ot iva te h is d isc h ar ge , or( 3) that they w er e insuffi ci en t t o m oti vate di schar ge. ” M ec hnig18 N o. 10

- 2977

v . S e a rs , R o e b u c k& Co. , 8 64 F. 2d 1359 , 13 65 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ( em p h as i s in or i gi nal, quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). S ee al so Cli f f v. Board of Sc hool Com m is s i one rs of t heCi ty of Indi anap oli s , 42 F. 3d 403, 41 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( re c og n izing M ec hnig f ra m ew or k i n conte xt o fpl ainti ff

- tea cher ’ s cl ai m that defe nd ant- Board’ s no n-di scr im inato rybas i s fornotr enew i ng herco ntra ct

— n e g a t i v e p er f o r ma n c e r e v i e ws

— w as p retex tu al)

. Si l ver m an r est s hercas e o n the first type o fev i dence des cr ibe d i n M ec hnig, as ser ti ng tha t th e Boar d’s sta ted reaso n h ad no b as i s i n f ac t. S ucha r g um en ts r equire str ong evi dence thatco uld l eave a disinter est ed obs er ver d ou b tin g th e ho n es ty of th e sta te d re as on . S e e , e . g. , Haguev. Thom pson D i s t r i b ut i on Co. , 43 6 F
. 3d 816, 82 3 (7th C ir. 2006) (conc lud ing th a t it is ins uffici en t for a pla i nti ffto sho w thata n e m plo yer ’ s deci si on was m i st ak en o r i l l

- consi dered wh er e i t i s undis pu ted thatan em p loy er h on es tly b elie ve s a n on -d isc rim in at or y ra tio n ale for te rm in at ion ); M c Co yv . WGN Co n t i n e n t a l Bro a d c as t i ng Co. , 9 57F
. 2d 368, 3 73 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2) ( no tingtha t th e i ssue ofpre text i n age di scr i m i nati on co ntext a d d re sses whethe r the e m pl o y ee ho ne st l y b el i ev es i n the r ea so ns it offers f or i ts em p loym en t d ecision). Si l ver m an si m plyhas not provi ded any evi dence beyo nd herm er e di sag re em ent with K ar vel as’ s e val uati on t o i nd i cate t hat the Boar d did not i n f act base i ts dec i si o n onKar ve l as ’ s r ec o m m en dat i o n a nd a ss es sment of h er p e r for m an c e a s ith as arg u ed . W e e x p lain ed th is r equi r ement w ith r es pec t to a g e di sc r i m i na ti o n in Futre ll v. J.I. C a se, 38 F .3d 34 2, 34 6 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) : “If th e e vi-N o. 10

- 2977 19 den ce do es no t ampl y s uppo r t a pl aint i ff’ s claim tha t th e defe nd ant’ s e xplanat i on i s unw or thy o fcr edenc e, j ud gm en t as a matt er o fl aw i s en ti r ely a ppr o pr i at e. ” The sam e co ncl usi on f ol l ows i n a Ti tl e VI Ianal ysi s. Thus , e ve n l o o k i ngdi r ec tly a t Kar ve l as ’ s ev al ua ti o ns an d their f actu al b a s es, it i s ir relevan t to a sum m ary j ud gm ent a nal ysi s whether K ar vel as m i schar acte ri zed Silv er m an ’s c las sr oo m m an ag em en t s k ills. W e s im p ly do no t wei g h th e pr ude nc e o f empl o y m en t d eci si o ns m ade b y fi r m s ch arged wi the m pl o y m en t di sc r i m i na ti o n. Se e i d. “ An empl o y erc anfi r e ane m pl o y ee f o r a ny r ea so n, f air o r unfai r, so l ong as the deci si on t o ter m i nate i s no t bas ed on age or som e oth er p rotecte d c a t e gory . ” Ki e rv. C o m m ercia l U nio n In sura nc e C o s. , 80 8 F
. 2d 12 54, 12 59 (7th C ir. 1987). M ostdetr i m entalto S i l verm an ’ s cl ai m i s the undisp ut ed f ac t th at K arvelas obse rved one of Si lverm an ’s cl as se s i n F eb r ua r y 2 00 5, wel l b efo r e s he l ea r ne d o fthe p re gn an c y, so th at n eg at ive e va lu at ion c ou ld n otp os sib ly have been affecte d by a ny supposed bias ag ai nst pr egnancy. N ei therh as Si l ver m an pro vi ded any evi dence to c al l i nt o que st i o n Kar ve l as’s wri tt eno bs er va ti o ns r eg ar d in g ot h er te ac h er s, all of w h ich w er e p os itiv e. It is n otsu ffici e n t fo r Silv er m an to arg u e, as sh e h as , th at all the t eacher s were goo d but becau se the one tea cher w hose em plo ym en t was notr enewed was pregnant, her preg nanc y mus th a v e b e e n the de c i di ngf a c t o r f o r h er se l ec ti o n. W e ar e l eft w ith no e vi den ce fr o m whi cha reason able j ury c o u ld i nfer p retex t and discrim inatory an im u s. I n the abse nce o fany w hi ffo fdi sapprova l by th e B o a r d of h er p re gn an c y, Silv er m an ca n n otav oid20 N o. 10

- 2977

sum m ar y j ud gm ent with an “unador ned c lai m ” that a j u ry m igh t n otbe liev e t h e B oa rd ’s e x p lan at ion
. Gian

nopo ul os , 10 9 F
. 3d at 411.

2. Int e r vi e win g Othe rs f ortheNe w Posi t i on S i l ve r m ana l so t r i es t o s uppo r t he r pr et ex t ar g um en t w i th ev i dence ofthe Boa rd’ s a cti ons afterherco ntra ct w as not re new ed. On J uly27, 20 05, the Board’ s Offi ce ofS peci alS er vic es noti fi ed pri nci pal Karvel as that Li nc o l n P ar kwoul d b e th e sit e o fa ne w aut i sm uni t an d th at a n ew au tis m te ac h in g p os itio n w ou ld be c o m e a va ilab l e f o r the 2 00 5- 20 06 sch o o l y ea r . In a l et te r da te d the ve r y n ex t d ay , K ar ve las offe re d Silve rm an th is n ew p os iti on, wh i ch she accepte d o n A ugust 1 1. In spi te ofher rehire, Silv e rm an m aintain s tha t the circum stan ces su rro und i ng he r re hi re were evi dence ofpre text. Karvel as i nt er vi ewe d t wo o th ert ea ch er s f o r the a ut i sm po siti on. Si l ver m an cl ai m s that these i nter view s were att em pts byKarvelas a nd the Bo ar d t o a vo i d r eh i r i nghe r . S he ar gues that they supp or t herpre te xt ar gum ent under the ind i re ct m et h od byi nd i cating tha t “ K ar vel as too k a dim vi ew o fpre gnant tea cher s, had no intenti on o f o ffe r i n g S i l v e r ma n th e n e w p o s i t i o n u n t i l t o l d b y t he Law De par tmenttha t sh e ha d t o , a nd rem ained int en t on ge tt in g rid of Silv er m an .” This i s s pecula ti on r atherthan a r eas onabl e infe re nce. W i ththe s ta r t ofthe s ch o o l y ea r f as t appr o ac hi ng, the B o a r d n eed ed to cond uc t interview s for either Sil verm an ’ s ma t e r ni t y - l e a v e s ub s t i t ut e o r a p e r man e ntt e a cher in c ase Si l ver m an decl i ned her offer . I t was per fectly r ea-N o. 10

- 2977 21

A s n o te d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt, Si lverm an obtained another 4 teac hing posit ion ata differentChicago sc hool by A ugu st20 06 and t h u s suffered no los s ofcom pensati on or benefit s. In thi s act ion, s he s eeks only com pensatory dam ages f or m ental an d em otio na l d istress. sonab l e forthe Board t o hol d in tervi ew s a nd to be unsur e attha t ti m e whethe r i t woul d b e ab l e to o fferthe i nter vi ew ee a s hor t- te rm o r perm anent pos i ti on. M ost i m po r ta nthe r e i s th atthe Bo ar d o ffer ed S i l ve r m anthe posi ti on a nd S i l ver m an acc epted. The f act that K arv elas i nter vi ew ed oth er te acher s i s no t e nough f ora ra ti onal tr i ero ff act to i nfe r pr etext and fi nd f orS i l ver m an o n h e r d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m.

III
. The Retal iati on C laim I n h er secon d cou nt, Si lverm an all eges th at th e B oard re tal i ate d against h erf orfi l i ng a charg e o fdi scr i m i nati o n wi th the EE OC. S he c o nt e nd s thi s r e t a l i a t i o n too k th e f o r m o fr eh i r i nghe r f or a m ore di ffi cul t po si ti o n a nd not re new i ng herco ntra ct t o tea c h at Li ncol n Parkafter the 2 005- 2006 sch ool ye ar . Ti tl e VI Ipro hibi ts an 4 empl o y e r fr o m t a k i nga n a dv e r s e e mpl o y men ta c ti on aga i nst a n em plo yee bec ause sh e has fi l ed an em plo ym en t d iscrim ination ch arge. See 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000e-3(a); B url ingto n N o rther n & Santa Fe R ailway Co
. v. W hite, 54 8 U. S

. 5 3 , 6 2 ( 2 0 0 6 )

. A s w i th h e r d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m, S i l ve r m an m ay defea t a m o ti o n f o r su m m ar y j ud g m en t by provi ding suffi ci ent e vi dence ofr eta l i ati on thro ugh ei thera dir ect ori nd i re ct m etho d. Se e Weber v. U niv ersities22 N o. 10

- 2977 R es earch Ass’n, Inc. , 621 F.3d 589 , 5 9 2 ( 7 th Cir. 2010). S i l ve r m anpr o ce eds u nd erb o thmeth o ds. W e fi nd no s uffi c i e nte v i de nc e o fr e t a l i a t i o n un de r e i the r me tho d.

A. The D i r e ctM e t hod T o avo i d sum m ar y j ud gm ent under the di re ct m etho d o fp r o o ff o r p r o v i n gr e t a l i a t i o n, a p l a i n t i ffmu s ts h o w: ( 1) thatshe engag ed in a st atuto ri l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty; ( 2) thatshe su ffer ed a m ate ri al l y a dvers e a cti on by her em plo yer ; a n d (3 ) ther e was a causall i nk be tw een th e t w o. Jones v . R es- C are, Inc. , 613 F.3d 665 , 671 (7th C ir. 2010 )

. S i l ver m an sa ti sfi ed the fi rs t el em ent. Fi l i ng a charg e with the EE OC abo ut the all ege d discr i m i nati on i s the m ost o b vi ous for m o fst atuto ri l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty. Se e 4 2 U .S.C . § 20 00 e-3 (a); C hap in v. Fort -Ro hr M otors, Inc. , 621 F. 3d 673, 67 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)

. Fo r the s eco nd el em ent o fan a dvers e a cti on, S i l verm an id enti fi es thre e: as si g ni nghe r t o a mor e di ffi cu ltpo si ti o n wi ththe auti sm cl ass i n 2 00 5; wri ti ng neg ati ve evaluati ons ofher te a c h i n gd u r i n gth e 2 0 0 5

- 2 0 0 6 s c h o o l y e a r ; a n d d e c i d i ng no tto renew h e r c o nt r a c ti n 2 0 0 6
. T he Bo a r d c o nt e nd s the firs t and seco nd act i ons do not quali fy, but concedes that the no n-r enewal ofS i l ver m an’ s co ntra ct in 200 6 qua l i fi es a s ana dve r se a ct i o n. I n a r eta l i ati on ca se, an a dvers e a cti on is “o ne that a rea so n ab le em p loy ee w ou ld fin d to b e m a t er ially advers e s uch that the e m plo yee w oul d b e di ssuaded fro m engag i ng i n the prot ecte d acti vi ty. ” R oney v. Il li no is D ep’t of Tr ans por t at i on , 474 F.3d 45 5, 46 1 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A lthough S i l ver m an char acte ri zes o ne o fheral l ege d advers eN o. 10

- 2977 23 action s at issue h ere as “an a s s ig n m en t” to a m ore diffi cul t pos i ti on, she re fer s in f act to the Boa rd’ s o ffer to he r o fa ne w p ositi o n, no t a r ev i se d a ss i g nm en t. Hav i ng l ostherposi ti on in the spri ng o f20 05

— and, as w e hav e expla i ned, ther e was nothi ng unl aw ful about that deci si on

— s h e w a s o ffe r e d th e o n l y p o s i t i o n th a tb e c a me ava ilable thatsum m erf orso m eone with he r quali fi cati ons. That a cti on ca nnot re aso nabl y b e char acte ri zed as re tal i ato ry . Even i fwe assum e that S i l ver m an’ s new tea chi ng r ol e was l ess desi rabl e th an h er prev i ous o ne, the Boa rd was und erno obl i gat i on t o re h ire h er f or any pos i tio n at al l

. To c hara cter i ze the Boa rd’ s o fferas a r et al i atory cha ng e i n a ss i g nm en t i s to mis co ns true the se r i es o fe ve nt s l ea di ngt o S i l ve r m an ’ s ac ce pta nc e o fthe newl y c r e a t e d po s i t i o n. Th e Bo a r d’ s j o b o ffe r t o te ach au ti st i c stude nt s atLi nc o l n P ar kwas no t ana dve r se a ct i o n. The parti es furtherd i spute w hetherthe negat i ve evaluati ons Si l ver m an r ecei ved duri n g th e 2 005- 2006 scho ol yea r w er e a dvers e a ctio n s. I n Feb ruar y a nd M ar ch 200 6, K ar vel as obs er ved S i l ver m an’ s a uti sm cl ass . H ero bser vati on not es i nd i cated that, byheras ses sm ent, S i l ver m an w as not perf or m i ng welli n the c lass ro om . A s a r esul t, Si l verm an r ecei ved atl eas t o ne wri tte n noti ce fro m K ar vel as sta ti ng tha t hercl ass room instructi on was w eak

. S i l ver m an co ntends thatthes e cr i ti c ism s o fher tea ching, the ver aci ty ofwh i ch she disputes , co nsti tute ad verse em p loym en t actions
. A s the Sup rem e C ou rt has taugh t, T i t l e V I Ido e s n o ts e tf o r th a g e ne r a l c i v i l i ty cod e f orthe w or kpl ace. S ee B urlin gto n N o rthern , 548 U
. S. at 68. The st atute does , however, pro hibi t em p loy er acti ons that ar e l i kel y t o detervi cti m s o fdi scr i m i nati on24 N o. 10

- 2977 fro m co m p lain in g t o th e E E O C

. Id. In B urlin gto n N o rthern , th e C ou rt m ad e clear that con tex t m atters to th e d e t e rm i nati on o fwh at c on sti tutes a m ate ri al l y a dvers e a ctio n . Id. at 69. In thi s co ntext, w e ag re e with Si l ver m an that a neg ati ve perf or m ance evaluati on co uld co nsti tute an adver se acti on withi n the m ea ni ng o fthe dir ect m et h od of p ro vin g re ta liat ion (as d is t i n c t fro m a c laim of discrim ination ba sed on a p rohibited classification). N ev er th ele ss , un d er th e d ire c t m et h od , Silve rm an st ill bears the b urden ofpro vi ding evi dence te nd i ng to sho w a ca usalco nnecti on be tw een those ev al uati ons an d her com p lai ntwi ththe EEOC m o nths e ar l i er, b efo r e sh e was r eh i r ed f o r the 2 00 5- 20 06 y ea r . The fac t th atthe e v a l u a t i o ns o c c u r r e d l a t e r d o e s n o ts u ffi c e t o s h o w a causalco nnecti on. S i l ver m an has not offer ed evi dence tha tthe e v a l ua t i o ns we r e c a us a l l y l i nk e d t o h e r EE OC ch arge, so w e nee d not con side r them furt he r. The Board co ncedes that i ts deci si on notto r enew Si l ver m an’ s co ntra ct in th e su m m ero f20 06 const i tuted an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on. S i l ver m an m ust then offer“e vi dence thatr ea sonabl y s ugges ts” thatherpro tect ed acti vi ty w as re l ate d to the Boa rd’ s deci si on. See Le wis v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 49 6 F
. 3d 645, 65 5, quoti ng Burks v. Wi s co ns i n Dep’ tof

Tr ans por t at i on , 46 4 F
. 3d 744, 75 8- 59 ( 7th C i r . 2 00 6)

. I n Lewis , w e h eld th at th e p lain tiff p ro p er ly su ppl i ed addi ti o na l e vide nc e be y o nd s us pi ci o us t i m i ng t o s u r v i v e s u mma r y j u dg men to n a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. T h er e, th e pla in tiff’s su p er vis or s tre at ed h er les s w ell aftershe fi l ed a di scr im i nati on char ge. S ee id. at 655- 56. H er e, h ow ev er , Silve rm an h as n otp re se n te d an y e vid e n c e t o b a c ku p h e r c l a i m. S h e r e fe r s t o th e i nt er vi e wsN o. 10

- 2977 25 that too k pl ace ar ound th e t i m e that s he r ecei ved her a u t i s m j o b o ffe r a n d s t a t e s th a t“ a j u r y c o u l d c o nc l ud e th atKar ve l as had n o i nt en ti o n o fr eh i r i ngS i l ve r m an ” b a s e d o n th a te v i d e n c e . T h e f a c tth a tth e i n t er vi e ws too k pl ace has no thi ng to do with est abl i shi ng a causal connect i on between Si l ver m an’ s EE OC charge and the non- re new al of herco ntra ct the f ol l owing spri ng, nordoes S i l ver m an sugg est a n y way that i t m i ght s ubst an tia te h er as se rt ion
. I n the abse nce o f a n y persuasi ve evi dence ofr eta l i ation th roug h th e d irect m eth od , w e turn to Si lverm an ’s attem p t to prov e by th e ind irect m et h o d that the B oard inten d ed to retali ate aga inst h er.

B. The Indi r e ctM e t hod To e st ab l i sha pr i m a f ac i e ca se o fr et al i at ionunde r the i nd i re ct m etho d, Si l ver m an m ust dem onst ra te tw o of the sam e e l em ents re quir ed by the di re ct m etho d: fi rs t, thats he e ng a g e d in a s t a tut o r i l y p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y a nd , se co nd, tha t sh e su ffer ed ana dve r se e m pl oymenta ct i o n. N ichols v. Souther n Il li nois U nivers ity-E dw ardsvil le, 51 0 F.3d 772, 785 ( 7th C ir. 2007 ). A s not ed , t h e B o a rd concedes that Si l ver m an has est abl i shed these t w o el em en ts as to it s d e c i s ion to n otren ew h er co n tr ac t in 2006
. The i nd i re ct m etho d al so re quir es Si l ver m an to sh o w that s he met th e Bo ar d’ s l eg i ti m at e ex pec ta ti o ns an d th at sh e w as tr e a t e d le ss fav or ab ly th an sim ilar ly si tuate d em plo yee s w ho di d not e ngage i n the sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty. S ee Leonard v. Ea st er n Il li nois Uni ve rs ity , 6 06 F. 3d 428, 43 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)

. I fshe est ab-26 N o. 10

- 2977 l i shes these el em ents, the burden shifts to the Boa rd to produce a l egi ti m ate , non- re tal i ato ry re aso n f or not re new i ng S i l ver m an’ s co ntra ct. N ic hols , 510 F.3d at78 5. If i ts u c c e e d s i n d o i n gs o , th e n S i l v e r ma n mu s tc o me f o r war d wi th ev i den ce th at th e Bo ar d’ s pr o ffer ed re as o ns w er e o n l y a p re te x t fo r re ta liat in g a ga in st h er . Id. N ei ther partydoubts that Si l ver m an m et the Boa rd’ s l egit im ate expectat i ons. T he par ti es dispute, however, wh ether th e B oard treated a s im ilarly situat ed em p loyee m ore f avo rabl y. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthat S i l ve r m anf ai l ed to o ffers uffi ci en t ev i den ce tha t sh e wa s tr e a t e d l e s s f a v o r ab l y th a n a s i mi l a r l y s i t u a t e d e mpl o y ee . S he c an no t pr o ve r et al i at i o n thr o ug h the i nd i r e c tme tho d. If an em p loy er ta ke s a n ac tio n ag ain st on e e m p loy ee in a pr o te ct ed cl as s butno t an o th ero utside tha t cl as s, a nd al l el se i s equal between the com parat or s, w e can i n fe r d i s c r i mi n a t i o n, a tl e a s tp r o v i s i o n a l l y a tth e p r i ma f aci e s ta ge ofthe anal ysi s. S ee Humphr i e s v . CBOCS We s t, Inc ., 47 4 F .3 d 3 8 7, 40 5 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), aff’d, 553 U
. S. 4 4 2 ( 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e p u r p o s e o fth e “ s i mi l a r l y s i t u a t e d ” c o mp arator elem en t is to ensu re that allother variables are d isc ou n te d so th at a n infe re n c e o f u n law fu l int en t w ou ld b e r e a s o nab l e . T hu s , a l tho ugh the “ s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d” i nquir y i s a “fl exible , com m on- sense o ne, ” Henry v. Jon es , 507 F. 3d 558, 56 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , the com parat or s m ust be s i m i l areno ugh thatany differ ences in thei r tr eat
m ent c annot be a ttr ibuted to o thervar i abl es. S ee Senske v. Sybase, Inc. , 58 8 F. 3d 501, 510 (7th Cir

. 20 09) ( noti ng tha t a di ffer en ce i n pe r f o r m an ce hi story woul d di l ut e th e p er su as ive p ow er o fa s im ilar ly sit u at ed co m p ar iso n inN o. 10

- 2977 27 age di scr i m i nati on ca se) ; se e a l so Patt e rs on v. Indi ana N ewspapers, Inc. , 589 F.3d 35 7, 36 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (sim ilar ly si tuate d em plo yee ( s) m ust be “ dir ectly c om parabl e t o the pl ai nti ffi n al l m ate ri alas pe cts” )

. Those var i abl es includ e d isti nc tions in p ositi ons , p erform an ce, or sup ervi sor s. S ee Se ns ke, 58 8 F
. 3d at 510. Si l ver m an co ntends thatJ on Gol dstei n, a m al e pr obati onar y s peci aleducati on t eacher, w as si m i l ar l y s i tuate d an d w as tre at ed m or e fa vo ra b ly th a n s h e w as . G old st ein als o taught speci aleducati on s tudents and r epor ted to Kar ve l as . Kar ve l as o bs er ve d Go l dst ein’ s te ac hi nga r o und the s am e t i m e that s h e obser ved S i l ver m an. H ero bser vati on not es f ro m Gol dstei n’s cl ass i nd i cate thathe was effec tive i n m anaging hi s s tudents. Karvel as gave G oldst ein a “su p erior” ra ting for his w ork, w hile Si lverm an receiv e d only a “satisfactory” rating. Th ese d ifferences i n perf or m ance qua li ty und er m i ne the co m pari son betw een Go ldst ein an d Si lverm an f or t h e p u rp ose of a “si m i l ar l y s i tuate d” anal ysi s. A bsent adequate e vi dence f ro m w h ich a re aso nabl e j ury coul d questi on the hones ty ofKarvel as’ s eva l uati ons, we have no bas i s fro m wh i ch to i nfe r that the Boa rd’ s m oti ve w as actual l y r eta l i ato ry . E ve n if w e w e r e to find th at Silve rm an su c c ee d ed in est abl i shi ng a pri m a f aci e ca se thr ough the i nd i re ct m et h od , we concl ud e, as the dist ri ct c ourtdi d, that Si l ver m an’ s cl ai m would st i l l f ai l bec ause she has not offer ed suffi ci ent e vi dence that the Board’ s re aso n f ornot re n ew in g h e r c on tr ac t w as p re te x tu al. T h e B oa rd ag ain ass er ts substa nd ar d perf or m ance as its r eas on f ornot re n ew in g Silv er m an ’s c on tr a c t. T h e B oa rd offe rs as ev i-28 N o. 10

- 2977 dence ofi ts posi ti on K ar vel as’ s wri tte n obs er vati on n ot es, herte sti m ony that Si l ver m an f ai l ed to i ncor pora te sta nd ar d-bas ed i nstr u cti on into her w or k a m ong othe r cl ass ro om m anage m ent c oncerns, and tes ti m ony f ro m Dr
. S y l v i a Lov e , a s c ho o l p s y c ho l o g i s t, a nd Wan da K ra m er, an a ssi sta nt p rin ci pal

. In thei r decl ar ati ons, L ov e a n d K ra m er b o t h rela te d co n c er n s t h ey h ad w h ile obs er vi ng S ilver m an’ s cl ass ro om m anage m ent. But accor ding to Si l ver m an, Love never en tered hercl ass ro om an d K ra m er co n d u c te d on ly a “b rie f, po p -in ” v isit from w hich she w as no t qu ali fi ed to m ake a ny de term i nati ons about Si l ver m an’ s per f or m ance. Feder alR u l e o fCi vi l Pro cedure 56 re quir es the di str i ct cour t t o gr ant a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a fter di sc o ve r y “a g ains t a par ty who f ai l s to m ak e a showi ng su ffi ci en t to e st ab l ish th e ex i st en ce o fa n e l ement ess en t i a l t o tha tp a r t y ’ s c a s e , a nd o n whi c h tha tp a rt y w i l l bear th e b urden ofpro ofattr i al

. ” Cel ot ex Corp. v. C a tret t, 477 U
. S. 317, 322 ( 1986 )

. H er e, tak i ng the f act s in th e l i g ht m o st f av o r ab l e to th e pl aint i ff as th e no n- m o ving pa r t y, S i l v e r mann e v e r the l e s s f a l l s sho rti n he ra t t e mpt t o r a i s e a g e nu i ne i s s ue o fma t e r i a l f a c ta s t o the h o nesty o fthe Boa r d’ s j us ti fi ca ti o n f o r i ts de ci si o n. A su cc es sful p retex t argu m en t w ou ld req uire Sil ver m a n t o do m ore than si m plyal l ege thatthe B oa rd ’s reas on f ornot re new i ng herco ntra ct i s di shones t. The str onge st evi dence S i l ve rm an o ffer s t o supp or t her th eory is th e con fl icting accou nt s regard ing the Boa rd ’s cor robor ati ve evaluati ons ofh er perfor m ance. Despi te L ove’s d eclaratio n regard ing her obs ervation s of Sil ver-N o. 10

- 2977 29

m an ’s t ea c h in g, Silv er m a n t es tifie d th at L ov e s im p ly nevero bser ved her

— tha ti tj us tn e v e r h a pp e ne d. W i th r espect t o K ra m er, wh en S i l ver m an te sti fi ed i n her N ovem ber20 08 deposi ti on, she did notr ecal l Kram er com i ng i nto her cl ass ro om . In herA pri l 20 10 affi d av it, how eve r, S i l ver m an st ate d that Kram erdi d enterher cl ass ro om f ora quickvi si t duri ng the spri n g o f20 06. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d n ot r ely on ei thero fthes e a ccounts concerni ng Love o r K ra m er . N eve rthel ess , fro m thes e a l l e g e dl y f ab r i c a t e d a nd u ns ub s t a nt i a t e d ob s e r v a t i o ns, Si l ver m an m ai ntai ns, a j ury coul d infe r re tal i ato rym oti ve. A lthou gh the p a r t ie s d ispu te som e of th e facts su rro u n d in g these i nci dents, thei r dispute sti l l does not cr eate a gen ui ne i ss ue o fmate r i alf ac t as t o whethe r the Board’ s j usti fi cati on i s worthy o fbel i ef

. S ee Sta lt er v. WalM art Store s, Inc. , 19 5 F
. 3d 285, 28 8- 89 (7 th C i r. 19 99) ( “ W e l o ok n otatth e w isd om of th e e m p loy er ’s d ec ision, bu t rathe r at the gen uin en ess of the em p loyer’ s m otives”); Gi ann opou l os , 1 0 9 F
. 3 d a t 4 1 1 ( r e c o g ni z i ng that th e cou r t doe s not d ecid e w he th er a j us tification for term ination w as fair, bu t w h e t h er i t w as th e true reas on). The re l evantta sk f oro ur r evi ew , and the burden that Si l ver m an bea rs , i s t o show a ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ri al fact regard ing w he th er th e B oard ’s reli an ce on K arvelas’s as se ss m en ts w as legit im at e o r w as int en d ed m er ely to c oncea l r eta l i ato ryi ntent. S ee i d. Pre text i s “ m or e than j us t faulty reason ing or m istaken j ud gm en t on th e pa rt ofthe em plo yer ; i t i s [ a] l i e, speci fi cal l y a phony r eas on f orso m e a cti on. ” Sc r uggs v. Gars tSe e d Co. , 58 7 F
. 3d 832, 839 (7th C ir. 2 009) (citati on an d qu otation m arks om itted ). Se e a l so Fo rrester v. R a ula nd -B o rg C o rp . , 453 F
. 3d 416, 41 930 N o. 10

- 2977 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( sta ti ng tha t pr ete x t is “a del iber ate f al seh o od ”). A s w e h av e n ot ed w ith res p ec t t o p re te x t in th e di scr i m i nati on co ntext, i fthe Board hones tly be l i ev ed th e no n- di sc r i m i na to ry reas o n i t pr o ffer ed, the re aso n w as not prete xtual

. S ee Sc r uggs , 58 7 F
. 3d at 839. I fthe Bo ar d wer e su ppo r tingi ts d eci si o ns b y r ely i ng on Love ’ s obse rv ati ons, the f actuald i spute about whether sh e a c tu ally m ad e t h e o b s er va tio n s w ou ld be m at er ial. O n th is re c or d , ho w ev er , w e d o n otbe liev e t h at i t is m ate ri al

. Karvel as w as the k ey deci si onm ake r, and her o b s e r v a t i o ns in t he 2 0 0 4

- 2 0 0 5 s c ho o l y e a r, s o me mad e b efo re sh e le ar n e d o fSilve rm an ’s p re gn an c y a n d all bef or e the EEO C charg e, were consi ste nt with her negati ve o bs er va ti o ns i n th e 2 00 5- 20 06 s ch o o l y ea r . And th ose obse rvations w ere als o c ons istent w ith K ram er’s observ ations. Si lverm an point s to no t h in g i n th e record that re aso nabl y c al l s int o questi on the Boar d’s re l i ance on Karve l as’ s a sse ssm ents. S he ha s f ai l ed to r ai se a g en ui ne i ss ue o fmate r i alf ac t ab o utthe ho ne sty o fthe Bo ar d ’s st at ed n on -d isc rim i nator y r eas on f ornot re new i ng herco ntra ct at t h e e nd o fthe 2005

- 2006 sc h oo l yea r. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s there f or e A FFI RMED .

3- 21- 11