## 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. 11

- 2144 H AMI DA H. N AF I CY, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. I LLINO IS D EP ’ T OF H UMAN S ERVICES, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the No rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:09- cv-05408

—Jam es F. H old erm an, Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D M AY 23, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 18, 2012

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, C ircu it Judge. H a mi d a N a fi c y s u e d h e r e mplo yer, the Illi noi s Depart m ent o fH um an S er vi ces ( “I DH S”) , al l egi ng di scr i m i nati on and r eta l i ati on under 42 U .S.C . § 1 9 8 1 a n d T itle V II, 42 U .S.C . § 20 00 e, ets eq . A fter dism issi ng the § 1 9 8 1 clai m s, th e d istri ct cou rt gr an te d s u m m ar y jud gm en t t o ID H S on N afic y’s T itle V II c l a i ms . N a fi c y a p p e a l s , a n d w e a ffi r m.2 N o. 11

- 2144 I. N afi cy, wh o i s I ran ian , beg an worki ng f orI DH S as a s oci alworke r i n 199 6 a t the Chic ago Read M ental H eal th Center

. S oci alwo rk er s fo r I DH S ar e cl ass i fi ed as a S oci alW or kerI, I I, o r I I I, r espect i vely , w ith S oci al W or kerI I Ibeing the m ostexp eri enced. N afi cy sta rt ed at R ea d M en ta l H ea lth C en te r as a S o c i al W or ke r II. I n 200 0, s h e w as prom ote d to the pos i ti on o fS oci al W or kerI I Iand a lso tr ansfer re d to the M add en M ental H ealth C en ter. A t bo th M add en and Read, N afi cy w or ked with J ud y Bai l ey. A ccor ding to N afi cy, Bai l ey m ock ed her accentand sugg est ed that sh e shoul d not hav e be en pr o m o te d t o a S o ci al W orker I I Ib ec au se s he was I r an i an . I n 200 5, Bai l ey becam e di re cto r ofthe soc i al w or k depar tm ent a t M ad d en . A s the di re cto r ofthe soc i alwork departm ent, Bai l ey w as N afi cy’ s s up er vi sor . W hi l e Bai l ey w as her supe rvi sor, N afi cy fi l ed two com pla i nts o fdi scri m i nati on. The fi rs t was fi l ed in 2005 and rel ate d to N afi cy ’ s tr ea tment dur i ng a l ay o ff an d sub se que nt re cal l b ac k to her previ ousl y hel d posi ti on. I t i s uncl ear f ro m the re cor d pr eci sel y how that l ayo ff aff ecte d N afi cy, but she was ul ti m ate l y plac ed in a So ci al W or ker I I I posi ti on at M add en i n Se ptem ber ofth at s a me y e a r . I n A p r i l 2 0 0 9 , N a fi c y fi l e d a s e c o n d c o mp lai nt o fdi scr i m i nati on a ftershe re cei ved unfa vor able perf or m ance eval uati ons f ro m Bai l ey. N afi cy’ s cur re nt l aw sui t a ri ses o u t ofev ents at M add en i n 201 0 r el ate d to the c l osur e o f anothe r I DH S f aci l i ty

— th e H ow e D ev elo p m en ta l C en te r in T i n l ey P ar k, Illi n ois . InN o. 11

- 2144 3 i m ple m enti ng the H owe c los ure, I DH S w as obl i gat ed to f ol l ow cert ai n pro vi si ons ofa col l ecti ve bar gai ni ng ag re em ent ( “CB A ”) i n eff ect between i t and th e A m er i can Federati on o fS tat e, County a nd M unici pal Em plo yee s ( “A FS CM E”). L ike m ostI DH S em plo yee s, N afi cy i s a m embe r o fAFS CM E. The C BA g o ve r ns l ay o ff s, a nd c los in g t h e e n tir e H ow e D ev elo p m en ta l C en te r n at u ra lly necess i tat ed a num bero fl ayo ff s. T h e C B A p r o v i d e s th a tin th e e v e n to fa l a y o ff, e mplo yees m ay ta ke advantage o fa proce ss known as “bum ping, ” wherebym or e s en i orem plo yee s m ay displ ace or“bum p ” le ss seni orem plo yee s s ubj ect to the CBA at o th er I DH S f aci l i ti es. The CBA se ts f or th the pr oce du re s that m ust be f ol l ow ed fo r m or e s eni or e mpl o y ee s t o b u mp l e s s s e n i o r e mpl o y e e s . F i r s t, I DH S m ust no ti fy a l l em ployees pot enti al l y a ff ecte d by a l ayo ffo fthei r ri ghts und erthe CB A

. Thi s no ti fi cati on m ust i ncl ud e the f ol l owing i nform ati on: ( 1) a ro ste r l i sti ng em plo yee s e i th ersubj ect to l ayo ffo r aff ecte d by the l ayo ffand thei r re spective se n ior i ty dates, ( 2) a l i st o fI DH S vacan ci es , a nd ( 3) a va i l ab l e “b um pi ng ” o pti o ns for em p loyees w ho m ay be affected by l ayoff. T he bu m p ing op tions are ex ercised accord ing to seniori ty: “S tar ti ng with the hi ghestbar gai ni ng uni t a nd pay gr ad e” an em p loy ee m ay ch oo se t o “e x er c ise o r w aiv e” h is or h er ava i l abl e bum p opti ons. The pro cess , o utl i ned in d et ail in th e C B A , p r o c ee d s a c c or d in g t o w h at are id en ti-4 N o. 11

- 2144

In the d istrict cou rt, N aficy de nied all of ID H S ’s s tatem en ts 1 ofm ater ial f actrel ati ng to the l ayoffprocedu res , but she ci ted no c ont ra dicto ry e vi denc e re fut i ng the pr oc edur es . Li ke the di s t ri c tc ou rt, we a c c eptI DH S’ s s t at em en t s off ac tan d t he text oft he C B A itselfas un d ispu ted on this p oin t be cau se N afic y has off ered nothi ng that und erm ines ei ther one. fi ed as “bum ping pri or i ti es” o ne thro u gh six. Fi rs t, an 1 em plo yee subj ect to l ayo ff “shal l bum p the l eas t s en ior em p loyee i n th e s am e po siti on classifi cation and w ork l o ca ti o n. ” ( Art

. XX -La y o ff, §§ 3 (c )

- ( h)

. ) S ec o nd, i fno o n e i s a v a i l a b l e t o b u m p a t th a t w o r k l o c a t i o n, th e e mplo yee m ust bum p the l eas t senio r em plo yee i n that po si ti o n c l as si fi ca ti o n a t an o th erf ac i l i ty wi th i n the c ou n ty . ( Id. § 3 (d ).) I f n e i t h er of th os e o p tio n s is av ailabl e, num berthr ee d irects the em plo yee to bum p i nto the ne xt l ower pos i ti on in the sam e pos i ti on cl ass i fi catio n se rie s a t t h e s am e w or k loc at ion . ( Id. § 3( e ).) If th ere i s no such a vai l abl e pos i ti on, an e m plo yee m ust then b u m p int o t h e n ex t low er p os iti o n so m ew h er e w ith in th e c ou n ty . ( Id. § 3 (f ).) I f op tions on e throu gh f ou r are not possibl e, st eps fi ve and si x all ow an em plo yee to bump i nt o a “ pr ev i o us lyc er ti fi ed po si ti o n c l as si fi ca ti o n” in e it h e r the sam e w ork l ocat ion (step five) or el sew he re w ith in th e c ou n ty (st ep six ). ( Id. §§ (g)-(h ).) I n J anuary 20 10, N afi cy and otherI DH S em plo yee s po t e nt i a l l y a ff e c t e d b y the Ho we c l o s ur e r e c e i v e d a l et te r a l er tingthe m t o the p o ss ibi l i tyo fa l ay o ffa nd o u t l i n i n gp o t e n t i a l b u mp o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o th e m. N afi cy’s let terl i ste d her potenti album p opti ons as f ol l ows: ( 1) S oci alW or ker III at M add en M entalH eal thN o. 11

- 2144 5 Center, ( 2) S oci alW or ker I I I( Spani sh speak i ng) at M adde n, ( 3) S o ci alW o r k erI I I( par t- ti m e) atM adde n, a nd ( 4) S oci alW or ker II at M add en. The l ett eral so expla i ned th a ts h e c o u l d “ c h o o s e n o tt o b um p , ” a n d s e l e c ta n I DH S va ca nc y f o r whi chs he was qua l if ied any wher e i n the sta te , s en i or i ty perm i tti ng. The l ett eral so conta i ned an em p loym en t ap p li cation that N afi cy cou ld u s e to de term i ne wh ethershe w as qualified for a “l ate ra l m ove o r vol untaryr educt i on” i nto a pos i ti on i ncl ud ed on a publ i shed vaca ncy l i st. The l ett erwas signed by El i zabe th Sar m i ento , the Dir ecto r ofH um an Reso urces . Fi nal l y, the l ett eri nfo rm ed N afi cy that the m eet i ng to di sc u s s h e r p o te nt i alo p t i o n s wo u l d b e h e l d a tth e Ho we Devel opm entalCentero n Feb ruar y 2 , 20 10. At tha t t im e, N afi cymet wi thM ar kS amar as , the manage r o f the Bu r e a u o f Huma n Re l a t i o ns , t o di s c uss her opti ons. A ccor ding to I DH S, as em plo yee s e x er c ised thei r bum ping opti ons, N aficy w as bum ped fr om her posit ion bya m or e s eni orI DH S em plo yee . S he as ser ts th atdur i nghe r meet i ngS amar as tol d he r, wi th o ute xpla nati on, thathero nl y r em ai ni ng o pti on was to ta ke th e p ar t-t im e So c ial W or ke r III p o s i tio n atM ad d en . In add i ti on t o bei ng par t i nstea d offulltim e, that posi ti on re quir ed N afi cy to sw i tch fro m worki ng ty pica l day s h i ft s t o w o r k i n gn i g h t s fr o m m i d n i g h tunt i l 6 : 4 5 a . m. th ree d ays a w eek (Tu esd ay, W ed ne sd ay, an d Satu rd ay). I DH S s ta fffi l l ed o uta f o r m f o r Na fi cy to si g n r efl ec ting her deci si on t o bum p i nto the par t- ti m e p os iti on. N afi cy w as offi ci al l y re assi gned to the part- ti m e pos i ti on on June 1 , 20 10. S he was al l owed to r etur n to her f o rm erpo si ti o n ( ful l

- ti m e S o ci alW o r k erI I I ) wi ththe6 N o. 11

- 2144

In her res pon se to IDH S’ s st atem ents ofm ater ial f act, N afic y 2 deni ed the al l eg at i on t hatByr ne wai ved he r ri ghtt o bum p. The di s t r i c t c ou r t c on c l ude d t ha t Nafi c y ha d f a i l e d t o pr ov i de any e vi denc e c ont ra di c t i ng I DH S’ s e vi denc e on t hi s poi nt a nd o bs e r ve d tha tde s pi t e h e r de ni a l Nafi c y “ a ppe a r [ e d] t o be i n ge ne ra l agr ee m en t t hat Byrn e di d not el ec t t o b u m p and w as a llo w ed to fil l a vacant posi ti on as a Soci al W orker I I at t he El gi n f ac i l i t y. ” Li ke the di s t ri c tc our t, w e c an s ee no t hi ng i n the r ecord thatunde rm i ne s I DH S’ s e vi denc e t hatByr ne wai ved h er r i ghtt o b u m p an d l at er t ra ns f er re d i nt o the So c i alW or ke r I I pos i t i on. sam e s chedule and sal ar y t w o m on ths l ate r on Au gust 1, 2010

. A t the t im e of the How e l ayo ff s, ther e were thre e o ther So c i alW or kerI I Iem plo yee s a t M add en wh o w er e l ess seni orthan N afi c y. T he fi rs t, J ai m e DeJ esus, speak s fl uent S panis h and hel d the S panis h-s peaki ng S oci al W or kerI I Iposi ti on. The se cond, S haro n Byrne, waive d her ri ght t o bum p und erthe ter m s o fthe CB A

. W hen 2 th e b umpi ng pr o c e s s wa s c o mpl e t e a t the e nd o f F e b r u a r y , B y r ne t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o a v a c a n tfu l l

- t i me S o c i a l Wo r k e r I Ip o s i t i o n i n El gi n, I l l i no i s . T he thi r d, W illiam Sa fian , w or ke d as a p ar t-t im e So c ial W or ke r III
. Safi an was l ai d offbec ause N aficy b u m ped Safi an wh en s he mo v e d i n t o w h a th a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n h i s p a r t
- t i me po si ti o n. N afi cyfi l ed a compl aintwi ththe Equa l Em pl o y m en t Op portunity Com m i ssi on ( “EE OC ”) i n M ar ch 201 0, al l egi ng tha t herr eas si gnm ent to th e part- ti m e pos i ti on was di scri m i na to r y a nd r et al i at o r y . S pec i fi ca l l y , s heN o. 11

- 2144 7

A lth o u g h it is qu es tio n a b le w h e t h er th is p o rt io n o f Jett 3 s ur vi ved the 19 91 am en dm en t s t o § 1981 , Naf i c y ha s no t a p p ea le d the dist ri ctcourt’ s dism is sal ofher § 1981 c lai m s. In any e ven t, N afi c y woul d s t i l l ha ve had t o s how a pat t er n o r p ra ct ic e o f d isc ri m in a tio n b y ID H S , see Smi t h v. C hi cago Sch. R ef orm B d. of

Tr. , 1 6 5 F
. 3 d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 8

- 4 9 ( 7 t h C i r . 19 99 ) , an d t he r e i s n o s ug ge s t i onfr om t he r e c or d tha ts he c ou l d h a ve done s o. cl ai m ed that I DH S re ass i gned herto re tali ate f or previ ous disc ri m i nati on com pla i nts she had fi led with the EEO C and because she i s I ra ni an. On A pri l 14 , 20 10, Nafi c y r e c e i v e d a r i g ht

- t o - s ue l e t t e r f r o m the EEO C. N afi cy sued I DH S f ordi scr i m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati on und erbo th Ti tle V I Iand 42 U
. S. C. § 1 981. The di str i ct co ur t di smi ss ed N afi cy ’ s cl ai m s unde r § 19 81 reaso ni ng th at as a s tat e a gency, I DH S i s no t a “per son” am enab le to sui t under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, see, e . g. , Wil l v. M ich. D ep’t of Stat e P olice, 49 1 U.S

. 58 , 70

- 71 ( 1989 ) , wh i ch “con st i tutes the excl usi ve f edera l r em edy f orvi ol ati on of t h e ri ghts guar antee d i n § 1 981 by sta te gov er nm ental unit s. ” Je ttv. D allas Ind ep . S ch . D is t. , 49 1 U.S

. 70 1, 73 3 ( 1989 )

. The co urt then gra n ted sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o

3 I D H S on N a fi c y’s Title V I Iclai m s. Sp ecifi cally, the cou rt c on c lu d ed th at N afic y h ad n o d ire c t ev id en c e of d isc rim ina tion by a ny one i nv olved i n h er reassignm en t. N afi cy’s c l a i ms f a r e d n o b e t t e r u nd e r the i nd i r e c tme tho d, w here the dist ri ct c ou rt obser ved thatshe had fa i l ed to i den ti fy a s i m i l ar l y s i tu at ed I DH S e m pl o y ee who r e c e i v e d b e t t e r tr ea t me n tth a n s h e d u r i n gth e Ho we l ayo ff s. Fi nal l y, the co u rtr ej ecte d N afi cy’ s r eta l i ati on8 N o. 11

- 2144 cl ai m bec ause N afi cy had p ro d uced no ev i dence thather EEOC co m pl aint s m oti va te d he r r ea ss i g nm en t dur i ng the How e l ayo ff s. M or eov er, the consi derabl e t em pora l ga p be tw ee n h er c o m p lain ts (on e in 20 05 an d on e in A pri l 20 09) and the Fe b ruary 2010 l ayo ff s underm i ned the c l ai m o fa causalco nnecti on be tw een the two.

II. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo , exam i ni ng the r eco rd i n the l i ght m ost favorable to N afi cy a nd cons tru ing allreason able inferen c es fro m th e evid en c e in h er fa v o r . E.g
. , O ’ Le ary v . A ccret ive H ealth , Inc. , 657 F.3d 625 , 630 (7th C ir. 2011). S um m ar y j udg m en t i s appr o pr i at e when th er e ar e no ge nuine disputes of m ate ri al f act and the m ova n t is en ti tl ed to j udg m en t as a m at te r o f l aw. F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a); A nders on v. Libe rty Lobby, 477 U

. S. 242, 255 (1986 ). A s r el evanther e, Ti tl e VI If or b ids an e m plo yerfro m disc h ar gi ng o r dem oting an i nd i vi du alo n acco unt of h er rac e o r n at ion al or igin . 42 U .S.C

. § 2 0 00 e-2
. T itle V II also pr o hibi ts r et al i at i o n f o r pr o te st i nge m pl o y m en t di sc r i m i na ti o n a nd o th er unl awful pr ac ti ce s unde r the st at u te
. Id. § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a )

. W e be g i n w i th N a fi c y ’ s d i s c r i mi na ti o n c l ai m s. A p la i nt i ffa l l eg i ngdi spa r at e tr ea tment on a ccount ofnati onalo ri gi n m ay prove di scr i m i nati on ei th erdi r ect l y o r unde r the i ndi r ec t bur den

- sh i fting appr o ac h o ut l i ne d i n M cD o n nell D o ug la s C o rp. v. G reen , 41 1 U. S

. 7 9 2 ( 1 9 7 2 )

. Na fi c y c l a i ms s he h a s a dva nced su ffi ci en t ev i den ce t o wi th st an d s um m ar y j udg m en t und erbo th the di re ct a nd i nd i re ct m etho ds. W e di sag re e.N o. 11

- 2144 9

Al t h o u g h i ti s n o tr e l eva n tt o th e o u t c o me o fth e a p p e a l, we 4 note that there is s om e c onfus ion s urround ing w hich l ang uage s Naf i c y s pea ks

. Naf i c y’ s br i efs t at es th at s he s pea ks (co n tin u ed ...) T o a vo id su m m ar y j u d gm en t u sin g th e “d ire c t m et h od ,” a pl ai nti ffm ust m ar shalsuffi ci ent e vi dence, ei therdi re ct orci rcum sta nti al, thatan a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on w as m ot iva te d by d isc rim in at or y a n im u s. E .g. , Col e m an v. D onah oe, 66 7 F.3 d 83 5, 84 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. Dir ect ev i den ce “ us ua l l y r eq ui r es a n a dm i ss i o n fr o m the deci si onm ake r about h i s di scr i m i nator y a ni m us, wh i ch i s r ar e i nd eed. ” N agl e v. Vil l

. of Calu m et P a rk, 5 54 F. 3d 1106 , 11 14 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09). Ci rcum sta nti alev i dence m ay be suf fi ci ent to m ake out a dir ect cl ai m of d i scr i m i nati on wh en the pl ai nti ffpre sents eno ugh evi den c e t o al l ow a r ea so nabl e f ac tfi nde r t o c o nc l ude tha t th e adv er se e m pl oym en t ac ti o n was t ak ena s a r es ul t o fthe p lain tiff’s rac e o r n at ion al or igin
. D a ss v . Chic ago Bd. of E duc. , 675 F.3d 106 0, 1071 ( 7th Cir. 2012). N afi cypo i nt s to s ev er alf ac ts tha t sh e be l ie ve s amoun t to dir ect evi dence thatI DH S disc ri m i nated a ga in st her i n the bum ping proce ss. Fi rs t, she m ake s m uch of th e f ac t th atde spi te he r s en i o r i ty, s he was de ni ed th e Spani sh- speaki ng S oci alW or kerI I Ipositi on g i ven t o DeJ es us . As b es t we c ant el l, s he i s su g g esti ng tha t sh e has s how n dis cri m i nati on fro m the f act that I DH S had a nee d f or a Span ish- s p e aking soc ialw orker i ns tead of a m ult i l i ngual em plo yee , l i ke N afi cy, wh o spok e F ar si ( I ra ni an) and Dari( A f ghan)

. A nd al though s he asser ts 410 N o. 11

- 2144

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 “v ario u s A rab d ialects,” b u t she exp lain ed in he r affi d av it in the dist ri ctcourt thats he s peaks “Farci ( Iran ia n ) and D arai ( A f ghan). ” W e as sum e this m eans thats he s peaks Persi an

— s p e c i fi c a l l y F a r s i o r P a r s i ( s p o k e n i n I r a n , Af g h a n i s t an, and T a jik st an) and D ari ( one ofthe two offic ial l angu ages o f A fg h a n ist a n ). SeePersian Language, W ik ip ed ia , ht tp :// en .w ik ip ed ia .o rg /w ik i/F a rs i (la st v isi te d A u g . 3, 2 0 1 2 ). w i thout supp or t that I D H S “fals el y” sai d the posi ti on was f o r a S pan i shs pea k er, the r e i s no e vi den ce in the re cor d that su pp or ts thi s cl ai m . The r el evantquesti on und erthe dir ect m etho d i s whether the e vi dence “poi nts di r ec tl y ” to a di sc r i m i na to r y mot i ve f o r the e m pl oyer’s decisio n . SeeKo dish v. O akbrookTerrace Fire P rot. D is t. , 604 F. 3d 490, 50 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2 01 0) ( ci tat i on a nd i nter nal quot a t i o ns o mi t t e d)

. T he f a c ttha tI DHS g a v e p r e f e r e nc e to a S pan i sh

- spe ak i nge m pl o y ee f o r a S pan i sh

- spe aki ng po s i t i o n no to nl y f a i l s t o “ po i ntdi r e c t l y ” t o di s c r i mi nat i o n, i td o e s n o te v e n r a i s e th e i mp l i c a t i o n o fd i s c r i mi nati on. The o nl y reaso na ble i nfe re nce t o be dr aw n f ro m th e f a c t th a t I DH S g a v e th e p o s i t i o n t o DeJ e s u s an d not N afi cy i s that i t nee ded an ind i vi du alwh o spoke Spani sh

— a f act t hat has no bear i ng o n w hethero r not I D H S did or d id not w an t em p loyees w ho sp oke Pe rsi an. There i s no ev i dence thatther e was a need f or a F ar si orDari

- speaki ng S oci alW or kerI I I
. I t thus stra in s r eas on to su ggest th at a Farsi spea k e r shou ld be ch osen f or a Spani sh- speaki ng posi ti on or to i m plythatdi scr i m i nati on mot i v a ted the c ho i c e o fDe J e s us o v e r Na fi c y . T he CB A express l y r ese rv es I DH S’ s r i ght duri ng a lay off “ to est ab-N o. 11

- 2144 11 l i sh bo na fi de re qu irem ents ofspeci al i zed sk i l l s, tr ai ni ng, experi ence and othernece ssa ryqual i fi cati ons[
. ] ” N aficy can poi nt to nothi ng sug ges ti ng tha t I DH S did nothave a bo na fi de need f ora Spani sh speak er, and thu s it s ch o i ce o f DeJ es us f o r th e po si ti o n do es no t r ai se an i nf er en ce o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. N afi cy next as ser ts that disc ri m in at ion i s s how n by the f act that Sandra Byrne was al l owed to “bum p soci al w or ke r II’s for a p os itio n,” an d N afic y w as n ot . Th is cl ai m i s i nconsi ste nt with the uncontro ver ted ev i dence. By r ne wa i v e d h e r r i g htt o b ump. S he thu s di d n o t“ b ump” anyo ne; in st ead , she tr ansfer re d i nto a pos i ti on that becam e o pen aftertho se em plo yee s who opted to ex er c i se thei r bum ping ri ghts had com ple ted thatpro cess . N afi cy f ai l s t o poi nt to any evi dence thatunde rcuts thi s chain of ev en ts. S he m ake s m uch ofthe f act th atS amar as di d no t te l l he r dur i ngthe meet i ngtha t sh e c ou l d el ect not to parti ci pate in the bum ping proce ss. Butthe l et te r l i st i nghe r o pti o ns pl ainl y s ta ted th at sh e coul d “choos e not to b um p” i n hopes o ftr ansfer ri ng i nto a va cancy f orwh i ch she w as quali fi ed. I t i s t rue that the pos i ti on wh i ch Byrne u lti m ate l y t ra nsf er re d i nto did notappear on the o rig i nal l i st ofvac anci es att ached to the J anuary 20 10 l ett er . I DH S prese nted evi dence that the S oci alW or kerI Iposi ti on i n Elg i n w as added to th e va ca nc y l i stv i a adde ndum i n F ebruarya fte r the uni o n r eque sted tha t I DH S upda te the l i sto fv ac an t posi ti ons. N afi cy off er s no thi ng to r efu te thi s e xplanat i o n a s t o ho w thi s po s i t i o n b e c a me a v a i l a b l e. Thus, Byr ne ’ s t r e a t men tdo e s n o ts up po r tthe i nfe r e nc e that12 N o. 11

- 2144 anyo ne atI DH S i ntended t o disc ri m i nate aga i nst Nafi cy o n the b as i s o fhe r na ti o na l o r i g i n. Lastl y, N afi cy poi n ts to her supervi sorJ ud y Bai l ey, cl aimin gtha t sh e o pen l y di spa r ag ed N afi cy ’ s ac ce nt and atte m pted to p revent her f ro m o btai ni ng a So ci al W or kerI I Iposi ti on fro m a rec all l i st du ri ng a pri or l ayo ffi n 2 0 0 5 ( a n i nc i de nttha tf o r med the b a s i s f or N afi cy’ s 2005 EE OC co m pla i nt)

. S he has nei therexpl ai ned w hat happen ed in the 20 05 l ayo ffnorco nnected her tr ea tmentdur i ngi t to he r r ea ss i g nm en t d uri ngthe 2010 H owe l ayo ff s. M or eov er, N afi cy has no t l i nked Bai l eyt o he r F eb r ua r y 2 01 0 r ea ss i g nm en t. S amar as , the H um an Relat i ons m anage r, te sti fi ed i n hi s deposi ti on th at B aileyhad no i npu t i nto the l ayo ffpro cess that acco m panie d the cl osur e of H owe. Bail ey al so tes ti fi ed th at sh e w as u n i n vo lve d in t h e p ro c es s a n d in fa c t d id not know S am ar as. N afi cy’ s “evi dence” that Bail ey w as som ehow connecte d i s ba sed o n her bar e a sse rt i on that Bail ey w as u pset when she hea rd thatN afi cy too k the par t- ti m e pos i ti on. S peci fi cal l y, N afi cy cl ai m s that when she i nf o r m ed Bai l eya fte r the meet i ngtha t sh e h ad ta ke n th e p ar t-t im e p os iti on , B aile y w as “a c tu ally a n g r y ” a n d a s k e d N a fi c y w h y s h e t o o kth e p a r tt i me j ob. N afi cy too k thi s r espons e to m ean that Bai l ey som ehow had a hand i n the l ayo ffpro cess and had been hoping t o u se i t a s a n opportunity t o el i m i nate N afi cy because she i s I ra ni an. N afi cy fu rt h er cl ai m s that Bail ey’ s “ anger ” pro ves thatshe w as unh appy that N afi cy bum ped a non- I ra ni an o ut o fthe posi ti on a nd d i d not l ose herj ob enti re l y. B ail ey, f orherpart, te sti fi ed that s h e wa s “ s u r p r i s e d a n d k i n d o f s h o c k e d th a ta ful l

- t i meN o. 11

- 2144 13

em plo yee would se l ect a p art- ti m e pos i ti on, ” a nd that she had ur ged N afi cy to speak to her unio n re p re se n tati ve, wh i ch N afi cy did. W e m ay accept N afi cy’ s v i ew o f Bail ey’ s r eact i on, but i t doe s no th in g to prov e Bai l ey had a ha nd i n the l ay o ff s. And wi thout e vi den ce c o nn e c t i ng B a i l e y t o th e l a y o ffp r o c e s s , h e r a l l e g e d d i s c r i min at or y a n im u s t ow ar d s N afi c y i s irre lev an t. Se eM ar t i no v. M C I C o m m c’n S e r v s ., Inc ., 574 F. 3d 447, 45 2- 53 ( 7th C i r. 20 09) ( i nd i vi du al ’ s di scr i m i nator y c om m ents only re l evanti fhe was a d ec isi onm ake r orhad “ ‘ si ngul ar i nfl uence’ ” o verthe deci si onm ake r) ( i nter nal ci tat i on om i tte d). There i s thus nei therdi re ct nor ci rcum sta nti al ev id en c e in th e re c or d su fficie n t t o c r e a t e a tria b le i s s ue o ff a c to fdi s c r i mi na t i o n un de r the di r e c tme tho d. Nafi c y ’ s di s c r i mi na t i o n c l a i m f a r e s n o b e t t e r u nder M cD o nn ell D o ug la s’s i nd i r e c tb ur de n- s hi ft i ngme tho d. Under thi s m etho d, a pl ainti ffmustfi r ste st ab l i sha pri m a f aci e c as e of r aci alo r nati onalo ri gi n dis cri m i nati o n with e vi den ce tha t ( 1) s he i s a m embe r o fthe prot ecte d cl ass ; ( 2) she m et her em plo yer ’ s l egitim ate j ob expec ta tio ns; ( 3) she suf f er ed an adver se em plo ymen ta c t i o n; a nd ( 4 ) s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d e mpl o y e e s o ut s i de of t h e p ro te c te d cla ss w er e t re a te d m or e fa vo ra b ly. E.g
. , A rizan ovska v. Wal-M art Store s, In c. , 68 2 F
. 3d 698, 70 2 (7t h Ci r. 2012 )

. I f N afi cy succee ds i n est abl i shi ng a pri m a f aci e ca se, t h e burden shi fts to I DH S to i ntro du ce a l egi ti m ate , nondi scr i m i nator y r eas on f orthe em plo ym en t a c t i o n . Id. Then N afi cy coul d avoi d sum m ar y j ud gm ent with evi dence sug ges ti ng tha t I DH S’ s s tat ed re as on is infac t p re te x tu al.14 N o. 11

- 2144 A lthou gh N afi cy can est a bli sh the fir st th roug h th ird e l e men t s o f a pr i ma f a c i e c a s e , s he f a i l s t o i denti fy a sim ilar ly sit u at ed em p loy ee w h o w as n ot ad ve rs ely aff ec te d i n the l ay o ff s. Nafi cy ins i st s th atb o thDe J es us and Byrne a re si m i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo yee s. But as disc u ss ed ab ov e, bo th ind ivid u als d iffer from N a f i c y in critic alr espect s. DeJ esus speaks S panis h, and N afi cy a d mi t t e d l y d o e s n o t
. He wa s th e r e f o r e q u a l i fi e d f o r t he Spani sh- speaki n g posi ti on, a m ate ri aldi ff er ence bet we e n h i m a n d N a fi c y th a tp r o v i d e s a n o n d i s c r i mi nator y e xplan at ion as to wh y he w as not bum ped fr om hi s ful l

- t i me po s i t i o n. As f o r By r ne , h er d ec i s i o n t o o pt out ofthe bum p in g p roces s pl aced heri n a fund am en ta l l y di ff er ent pos i ti on than N afi cy w hen i t ca m e t o th e l ay o ff s. By wai vi nghe r r i g htt o b um p, By r ne re m ove d herse l fenti re l y fro m the proce ss (a t the r i sk of l o singhe r j o b i fno v ac an ci es r emai ne d when the b u m p in g w as c om p let e). Sh e is th er efo re an u n s u ita b le com parat orf orN afi cy. N afi cy devote s m uch ofherbr ief t o l engthy quote s fro m ou r re c en t d ec isio n inCol e m an v. D onah oe, 66 7 F
. 3d 83 5 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ), w h er e w e d i s c u ss ed th e s im ilar ly si tu ate d requi re m ent in the conte xt o fa Post alS er vi ce em p loy ee ’s d isc rim in at ion cla im . W e ac kn ow led ge d in Cole m an that em plo yee s nee d not be carbon co pie s, nor m u st th ey be “id en tic al in e ve ry co n c eiv ab le w ay ” in or d er to p ro vid e a u se fu l co m p ar at or . See id. at8 46

. Tr ue as th i s ma y b e , i t i s u n h e l p fu l f o r Na fi c y , b e c au se t he dist i ncti ons between h er selfand herwould-b e co m parator s, DeJ esus and Byrne, are m ate ri ali n that they go to the he ar t o fwh y Nafi cy re cei ved di ff er ent t re atm ent.N o. 11

- 2144 15 A nd the diff er ences

— th atDe J esu s spo k e S pan i sha nd th a tB y r n e w a i v e d h e r r i g h tt o b u mp

— provi de a r eas on for th eir bett er treatm en t ent irel y un related to N afi cy’s na ti o na l o r i g i n. I nd eed , thes e d ifferenc es p rovide the ba sis ofI D H S’s legi tim ate, non d isc r im inatory ex p lanation f or N afi cy’s tr eat m ent. A nd N afi cy has pro vi de d n o evi dence that r e fu t es o r c a s t s d o u b to n I DH S ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n . T h u s , we coul d go so f aras to as sum e Nafi cy h ad es tabl i shed a pri m a f aci e ca se u n der the i nd i re ct m etho d, and her cl ai m would st i l l f ai l o n acco unt ofh er in ab i l i ty to ca stdo ub t o n I DH S ’ s no ndi sc r i m i na to r y r ea so n f o r the em p loy m en t a c tio n . SeeKeet on v. M o rningstar, Inc. , 66 7 F.3d 877, 885 (7th C ir. 2012). That l eave s Nafi cy’ s r eta l i ati on cl ai m . L i ke disc ri m i nat i o n u n d e r T i t l e V I I, r e t a l i a t i o n ma y b e p r o v en us i ng ei therthe dir ect ori nd i re ct m et hod. N afi cy disc usses onl y the di re ct m etho d i n her br i ef

. U n d er the dir ect m etho d, N aficy m ay avo i d sum m ar y j ud gm ent b y pr esen t i nge v i de nc e o f( 1 ) s t a t ut o r i l y p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i ty, ( 2) an a d ve rse a cti on ( suf fi ci entl y m ate ri alto deterpro tect ed acti vi ty) , and ( 3) a causalco nnecti on be tw een th e t w o. E.g
. , H arperv. C.R. Eng land, Inc. , 68 7 F
. 3d 297, 30 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. N afi cy can sho w causa ti on with evi dence tha th e r EE OC fi l i ngs i n 2005 and 2 009 w er e a “ substa nti al o r mot i va tingf ac to r ” i n h ert r ea tm en t d ur i ngthe H ow e la yo ffs. Cole m an , 66 7 F.3 d at 8 60 ( i nter nal quotations an d citation om itted ). The parti es agree thatN afi cy’ s char ges o fdi scr i m i nati on i n 200 5 a nd A pri l 2 00 9 consti tute sta tutor i l y pr o-16 N o. 11

- 2144
t e c t e d a c t i v i t y a n d th a th e r r e a s s i g n me n tt o th e p a r t
- t i me po si ti o n i s a m at er i al l y a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti on. The so le q u es tio n is th u s w h et h e r N afic y h as ad eq u at ely connect ed the tw o. A s with dis cri m i nati on, “di re ct” evi dence ofr eta l i ati on m ay be pr ove n by evi dence sh ow in g re ta liat ion w ith ou t re so rtto infe re n c e, i d. , — i.e., som ethi ng al ong the l i nes o fa dir ect adm i ssi on that N afi cy ’ s co m pl aint s m o ti va ted herr ea ss i gnm en t to the p ar t-t im e p os itio n . S e eBe n de rs v . Be l l ows & Be l l ows , 5 15 F. 3d 757, 76 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( noti ng the “r ar e” nature o f tr uly “dir ect evi dence”)

. N afi cy has no such evi dence l i nki ng herr eas si gnm ent t o her previ ous c om p lai nts o f di sc r i m i na ti o n. I ns te ad, s he a tt empts t o c o nne ctthe two us i ngwhatwe ha ve r ec o g ni ze d a s a “ ‘ co nv i nc i ng m osa i c’ o fcircu m sta nti alev i dence” that s up port s a n in fer en c e o f ret alia tio n . Cole m an , 66 7 F.3d at86 0 ( i nter nal ci tati o n o m i tt ed)

. S uchc i r cumst an ti ale vi den ce i ncl ud es suspi ci ous ti m i ng, evi dence thatsi m i l ar l y s i tuate d empl o y ee s w ere t r ea te d di ff er en tl y , o r e vi den ce tha t th e empl o y er ’ s st at ed r ea so n f o r the ad ver se e m pl o y m en t ac tio n w as p re te x tu al. Id. A s f orsuspi ci ous t i m i ng, the l ar ge t em pora l ga ps betw een he r com p lain ts and her re ass i gnm ent undercut, ra therthan supp or t, a causall i nk be tw een the tw o. H er fi rs t EE OC com pla i nt w as fi l ed i n 2005 and re l ate d to an ea rl i erI DH S l ayo ff

. The fiv e-yearga p between h er c om p lain t an d th e H ow e layo ffs m ak es it e x tr em ely unl i k el y th at th e two ev en ts wer e r el at ed. Li k ew ise, the ni ne - m o nth g ap be twe enhe r s econd c o m pl aint

— fi l ed i n A pri l 20 09

— do es l i tt l e to rai se s us pi ci o n abo ut N afic y’s tre at m en t d u rin g t h e la yo ff. See Jajeh v. Co untyN o. 11

- 2144 17

o f C ook, 6 7 8 F
. 3 d 5 6 0 , 5 7 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) ( fi v e - mon th gap b e t we e nc o mp l a i n to fd i s c r i mi n a t i o n a n d a d v e r s e e mp loym en t action d id n ot am ou nt to susp ici ou s tim ing); Le onar d v

. E. Il l

. U ni v. , 60 6 F

. 3d 428, 43 2 (7t h C ir. 20 10) ( not i ngtha ts i x- mon th l a gb e t we e n c o mpl a i nta nd de ni al o fpr o m o ti o n was “ to o l o ng to i nfera l i nkb etwee n the tw o”). A s e vi dence ofdi spara te tr eat m ent o r prete xt, N afi cy p r o v i d e s p a g e a ft e r p a g e o fqu o t a t i o n s fr o m C o le m an an d ot h er ret alia tio n c as es , bu t s ay s p re c iou s litt le i n d e e d ab o u th o w she has a ctual l y e stabl i shed a c ausal l i nk be tw een he r EE OC co m pla i nts a nd heru ltim ate re as sig n m en t d u rin g t h e H ow e la yo ffs. In d ee d , he r p rim ar y a rg um ent o n thi s poi nt i s heras ser ti on, buri ed a mo n gs e v e r a l p a g e s o fqu o t e s fr o m Cole m an and other dec is i o ns , tha t I DH S “ qua l i fi ed Pl aint i fff o r b um pi ng p os itio n s w h ich d isa p p ea re d an d ca m e u p w ith p os iti ons w hi ch w er e no t pr ese nted as al ter nati ves to Pl ainti ffi n f or m alnot i ces ( So ci alworke r

— Spani sh speak

i ng; El gi n so c ial w or kerposi ti on, et c. )

. ” Thi s a ccount of DeJe sus a nd B yr ne’ s t re atm ent duri ng the l ayo ffdoes nothi ng to es tabl i sh r eta l i ato rym oti ve on the part of I DHS

. A s d i sc us s e d ab o v e , I DHS h a s p r o v i de d a l eg i ti m at e, no ndi sc r i m i na tory e xp la na ti o n f o r why N afi cy’ s o nl y o pti on in the b um ping proce ss w as the par tti m e po si ti o n, and a l so why Byrne

— w ho waiv ed her r i g h t to b u mp

— w as abl e t o tr ansferi nto the pos i ti on i n El g i n a tthe c o nc l us i o n o fthe b umpi ngp r o c e s s . Pre

su m ably he r assert ion th at p ositi ons “d isap p eared ” refers to p ositi ons l isted i n th e Ja n u ary 2010 l etter th at w ere n o l onge r avai l abl e when she spok e t o Sam ar as at her18 N o. 11

- 2144 Febr uary m eet i ng. But I DH S explained that as seni or em plo yee s e xerci sed thei r bum ping opti ons N afi cy w as bum ped fr om herposi ti on a nd se ver alo f t he l i ste d choi ces i n her l ett erbec am e unavai l abl e. A nd al though N afi cy ci tes m ult i ple cas es f orthe propos i ti on that prete xt m ay be prove n w i th evi dence that an em p loy er l i ed orf ai l ed to f ol l ow it s o w n p ol i ci es, she f ai l s t o i denti fy a ny i nstance sho w i ng tha t I DH S i s gu i l ty of such behav i or . There i s no ev i d en c e in the r eco rd that N afi cy ’ s ex per i en ce de vi at ed i n a ny way fr o m the b um pi ng prot oco l se t f or th i n the C B A

. I n shor t, N afi cy off er s no thi ng but her own specul ati on t o sugge st th at IDH S’s exp lanation s are pret ex tu al, and that is ins ufficie n t. O ver ly v . K eyBa nk N at’l Ass’ n , 66 2 F
. 3d 856, 86 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( “[ R]e l i anc e on specul ati on i s no t e nough to getthe case to a j ury. ”) T he l ast p oten tial evid en ce of retal ia t ion i s N afi cy’s c l a i m t ha tBa i l e y k ne w o fa nd di s a pp r o v e d ofh e r EE OC com pla i nts. Thi s cl aim , to o, go es now here

. Fi rs t, she ci tes no ev i den ce t o s uppo r t he r c l ai m tha t Bai l eyk ne w ab o ut her c om pla i nts. M or e i m port antl y, as di scusse d above , N afi cyha s f ai l ed to l i nkBa i l eyt o the l ay o ffpr o cedu re or i den ti fy a ny e vi den ce c al l i ngi nt o que st i o n I DH S’s evid en ce th at B ail ey h a d no involvem en t in the layoff p r o c e s s a n d Na fi c y ’ s r e a s s i g n me n ti n p a r t i c u l a r . As such, t h er e i s no r eco rd ev i dence fro m wh i ch a ra ti onal j urorco uld i nfe r I DH S re ass i gned N aficy to r eta l i ate a g a i n s th e r f o r h e r 2 0 0 5 a n d 2 0 0 9 c o mp l a i nt s o fd i s c r i mi na ti o n.N o. 11

- 2144 19 III. As the c o nc ur r i ngo pi ni o n i n Cole m an re centl y r ec ogni zed, after set ti ng asi de the “snar l s and knots ” o ccasi oned byus i ngthe “ di r ec t” a nd “ i ndi rect” f o r m ul at i o ns , the questi on i s s i m plywh etherthe pla i nti ffhas “o ne way or the o the r ” p r e s e nt e d s uffi c i e nte v i de nc e tha ts he i s p r otect ed bythe s ta tu te , s uff er ed ana dve r se e m pl o y m en t action, and suffic ie n t eviden ce ex ists that a rati ona l j ury m i g htc o nc l ude the e m pl o y era ct ed o n accounto fthe pla i nti ff’ s pro tect ed cl ass as o pp ose d t o so m e o ther b en ign rea so n . Co l e m an , 6 67 F.3d at 86 3 (W ood , J
. conc urri ng)

. Rega rdl ess o fhow the e vi dence i s v i ew ed, N afi cy h as offe re d n ot h in g fro m w h ich a ra t i o n al jur or co u ld concl ud e that herr eas si gnm ent t o a par t- ti m e pos i ti on i n the w ake o fthe H owe l ayo ff s w as m oti vate d by ei th erdi sc r i m i na ti o n o r r et al i at i o n. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cou rt grantin g sum m ary j ud gm en t to I D H S on N afi cy’s cl ai m s.

9- 18- 12