Opinion ID: 784216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Race and National Origin Claims

Text: 21 Plaintiffs Pearl Adams, Daniel Allen, Michael Severado (all of whom are black), and Steve Real (who is Hispanic) also contend that the district court erred in granting the defendants summary judgment for their race and national origin discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981. In support of these claims, these plaintiffs assert that they worked in an environment replete with racist comments and where minority workers were treated as second-class citizens. Several of the racist comments referenced by the plaintiffs, however, are either extremely dated or were made by individuals who had no involvement or influence over the decisionmaking process that led to their terminations. Therefore, these comments cannot be used by the plaintiffs to support claims of race or national origin discrimination under the direct method. 12 Swanson v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 154 F.3d 730, 733 (7th Cir.1998) (noting that [o]nly evidence on the attitudes of the employees involved in the decision to fire the plaintiffs is relevant). The only racist acts attributed to anyone involved in the decisionmaking process concern Thad Zdunich (a member of the Operators selection panel) and Kevin Biehle (a member of both selection panels). According to the plaintiffs, Zdunich made hundreds of racial statements to Plaintiff Daniel Allen between 1998 and 2000, such as it's got to be a black thing; for brothers only; brothers' meeting today?; and what you mean, brothers' meeting? As for Biehle, the plaintiffs claim that he treated [Steve] Real with less cordiality than he treated Caucasian workers, told Pearl Adams the reason you're here is because you don't fit into our new family and you have been deselected, and informed Lori Washington, the other black Individual Contributor at the Joliet facility Job Family, that a white employee would be taking over her duties on the same day that he [told Adams that she had been deselected]. 22 However, as we have already explained, the selection panels are the relevant decisionmakers in this case, and therefore Zdunich and Biehle's alleged animus toward blacks and Hispanics is, without more, not enough to establish the convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence needed for the plaintiffs to prevail under the direct method of proof. To do so, the plaintiffs needed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Zdunich and Biehle's prejudicial views influenced their fellow panel members to such a degree that it resulted in their being terminated. 13 Swanson, 154 F.3d at 733; Shager, 913 F.2d at 405. This is evidence the plaintiffs simply do not have. 23 Moreover, as with the age discrimination claims, it is clear the incidents referenced by the plaintiffs in support of their racial or national origin discrimination claims would not permit a reasonable juror to infer racial or national origin discrimination under the direct method of proof. See Adams, 324 F.3d at 939; Traylor v. Brown, 295 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir.2002); Pafford v. Herman, 148 F.3d 658, 666 (7th Cir.1998). The plaintiffs also cannot prevail on their race and national origin claims under the indirect method because, as with their age discrimination claims, the evidence shows that they were not qualified to be retained or rehired by BASF, and that the company did not apply its qualifications in a disparate manner. 14 24 Finally, the remaining arguments offered by the plaintiffs in support of their race and national origin discrimination claims appear to be premised on a disparate impact theory. A disparate impact claim exists when an employer has adopted a particular employment practice that, although neutral on its face, disproportionally and negatively impacts members of one of Title VII's protected classes. Bennett v. Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 698 (7th Cir.2002). To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, a plaintiff must isolate and identify the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities. Id. Although the plaintiffs imply that BASF's restructuring process had such an effect, the numbers tell otherwise. Black employees in the company's NCR Unit were not disproportionally and negatively impacted by the restructuring process, and at the Joliet facility every Hispanic but Real was retained. Indeed, even the plaintiffs' own statistical expert witness conceded that the company's terminations did not have a statistically significant disparate impact on any protected group.