Opinion ID: 782759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circumstantial evidence under the direct method.

Text: 24 As discussed above, circumstantial evidence under the direct method allows a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker. There are three categories of circumstantial evidence under the direct approach, each of which may suffice by itself to establish discrimination, or may be used in conjunction with one or both of the other categories. Troupe, 20 F.3d at 736. The first category consists of suspicious timing, ambiguous statements oral or written, behavior toward or comments directed at other employees in the protected group, and other bits and pieces from which an inference of discriminatory intent might be drawn. Id. The second type requires a showing that the employer systematically treated other, similarly situated, non-pregnant employees better. Id. The third type is evidence that the plaintiff was qualified for the position in question but passed over in favor of a person not having the forbidden characteristic and that the employer's stated reason for its decision is unworthy of belief, a mere pretext for discrimination. Id. The latter category is substantially the same as the evidence required under the indirect method. Huff v. UARCO, Inc., 122 F.3d 374, 380 (7th Cir.1997). 25 Venturelli puts forth what she considers two additional bits of evidence that lend circumstantial support to an inference of discrimination. First, she cites ARC's schizophrenic ... assessment of Venturelli's value as an employee. According to Venturelli, although ARC often praised Venturelli's performance, in a letter from its attorney to the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division it also complained falsely that Venturelli (1) failed to work a forty-hour week; (2) worked an inconsistent number of hours; (3) simply stopped coming to work after February 24, 2000; and (4) failed to inform ARC and Adecco that she had no intention of returning to work. Venturelli relies on Hasham v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 200 F.3d 1035, 1049 (7th Cir.2000), for the proposition that where the employer makes false statements about an employee's job performance, a jury is entitled to view the false statements as circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory intent. 26 Venturelli misplaces her reliance on Hasham. The part of Hasham to which she cites holds that contradictory statements about the quality of an employee's work are evidence that the employer's stated reason for the adverse employment action was pretextual under the indirect method. Id. Circumstantial evidence under the direct method, however, must allow a jury to infer more than pretext; it must itself show that the decisionmaker acted because of the prohibited animus. None of the statements to which Venturelli points fits within any of the three categories that we delineated in Troupe. All that these statements show is that, in addition to its praise of Venturelli's work, ARC also offered some additional observations. In fact, there is no dispute that as a temp she worked less than 40 hours per week, that the hours worked were somewhat irregular, that she did stop coming to work after February 24, and that she did not return several calls of inquiry from ARC regarding her intent to return. Significantly, the attorney's letter emphasized that they wanted to hire her after the 520-hour penalty period ended, but because of her irregular hours it was not certain when that time period would expire. She left before they had that calculation. In short, the record verifies the facts set out in a letter that is mislabeled schizophrenic. 27 The second piece of circumstantial evidence to which Venturelli points is Baldwin's telephone conversation with ARC's insurance carrier, made in Venturelli's presence, where Baldwin relayed incorrect information that Venturelli would not be eligible for health benefits were ARC to hire her immediately. Venturelli argues that the record would allow a jury (1) to conclude that Baldwin was lying, as opposed to relying honestly on what the insurance company told her, and (2) to infer that the lie could only have been intended to discourage Venturelli from pursuing employment at ARC during her pregnancy. 28 For such a statement to be sufficient circumstantial evidence under the direct method, the remark in question must be directly related to the employment decision. Gorence v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 242 F.3d 759, 762 (7th Cir.2001). Venturelli, however, adduces no evidence that Baldwin's alleged lie about the insurance was in any way related to ARC's decision not to hire her as of January or February 2000. The only record evidence concerning the incorrect information that pregnancy was an uninsured preexisting condition is Karen Kinsey's testimony that including Venturelli on ARC's insurance coverage would have no effect because our health insurance costs us the same whether someone is pregnant or not pregnant. We thus conclude that this piece of evidence does not entitle Venturelli to reach a jury under the direct method. Because Venturelli puts forth no further evidence under the direct method, we turn to her evidence in relation to the indirect method.