Opinion ID: 2999232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Francis Blake

Text: Mr. Healy next challenges the district court’s finding that, although Mr. Blake was aware of Mr. Healy’s reports of corruption and theft at Mayfair, there was no evidence that Mr. Blake affected the Commissioner’s promotion decisions. Mr. Healy invites our attention to two pieces of evidence, which he believes indicate that Mr. Blake harbored retaliatory animus towards him, and, as a result, intentionally influenced the promotion process: First, in response to Mr. Healy’s inquiries about why he had not been promoted, Mr. Blake allegedly stated that promotion decisions come from the “top down” or from the “Fifth Floor” of City Hall. R.78, Ex.2 at 534 (Healy Dep.). Second, Mr. Blake allegedly told (...continued) knowledge” may not satisfy the plaintiff’s burden, “suspicious timing can raise an inference of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the causation element of the prima facie case.é Sanchez v. Hend erso n, 188 F.3d 740, 747 (7th Cir. 1999). Here, however, the timing of events is not “suspicious”: Even if Ms. Rice did speak with Mr. Healy in January or February 1999, the next adverse employment action did not occur until more than a year later. No. 04-3155 19 Mr. Healy that the reason he had not been promoted was because “there’s a political system, that’s the way it works.é Id . These submissions are weak reeds indeed on which to support a retaliation claim. The first comment, which blames promotion decisions on bureaucratic processes or a group of unnamed persons at City Hall, tends to absolve Mr. Blake of any personal responsibility for promotion decisions, rather than demonstrate any active role on his part in those decisions. The second might be relevant to Mr. Healy’s claim that he was not promoted because of his political affiliations, but it does not support the particular retaliation claim that he presents in this court. Notably, Mr. Healy has not pursued his Shak m an or equal protection claims on appeal. Even if these comments could be construed to demonstrate that Mr. Blake harbored retaliatory animus toward the plaintiff, there is no triable issue of fact on the question of whether Mr. Blake was responsible for the adverse employment action suffered by Mr. Healy. Mr. Healy consistently was ranked low by the interview panels, and the record compels the conclusion that he was denied promotions because of poor interview skills rather than because of his 12 reports of theft and corruption at Mayfair. For example, for 12 Mr. Healy responds that his extensive experience at the DOW demonstrates that he was qualified for a promotion to ACOE. However, he admits that experience is only one factor that the Commissioner takes into account when selecting candidates for promotion. Moreover, this court “do[es] not sit as a superpersonnel department where disappointed applicants or employees can have the merits of an employer’s decision replayed to determine best business practices.” Blise v. (continued...) 20 No. 04-3155 the August 1998 promotion, Mr. Healy was ranked 12th out of 21 applicants based on his average interview score; only the four top-scoring candidates were offered promotions. For the November 1998 ACOE promotion, Mr. Healy was ranked 14th out of 30 applicants; only the top six candidates, based on their interview scores, were promoted. For the November COE 1998 promotion, Mr. Healy was ranked 14th out of 17 applicants; the applicants with the top two interview scores were promoted. Similarly, in July 2000, Mr. Healy was ranked 16th out of 19 applicants; the City promoted the two applicants who achieved the highest interview scores. In July 2000, he was ranked seventh out of eight applicants; only the top-scoring candidate was promoted. Moreover, even if Mr. Healy is correct that Mr. Blake had an opportunity to affect the Commissioner’s promotion decisions, the record demonstrates that Mr. Blake did not capitalize upon this opportunity. For each of the promotion decisions in which he had any part, Mr. Blake’s recommendations to the DOP mirrored precisely the recommendations of the interview panel. As demonstrated by his letters to the Commissioner, he simply summarized the results of the interviews and ranked the candidates, premised in significant part on the scores assigned by the interview panel. See, e.g., Blake Memo., R.75, Ex.Q, Tab 3 at 7 (“I concur with the findings of the [interview] panel and recommend that the 12 (...continued) Antaram ian, 409 F.3d 861, 868 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); Ho lm es v. Po tter, 384 F.3d 356, 361-62 (7th Cir. 2004). Even if the individuals selecting candidates for promotion sho uld have promoted Mr. Healy because of his superior experience, there is no evidence that the reason they did not do so is because of his protected speech—rather than because his interview scores did not pass muster. No. 04-3155 21 six positions be offered to [the six candidates selected by that panel].”). Ultimately, in the case of all five promotions, for a total of sixteen open positions, the candidates recommended by Mr. Blake and promoted by the Commissioner were the candidates with the highest interview scores. The record evidence at the very most raises a “metaphysical doubt” about Mr. Blake’s possible discriminatory animus. Matsushita Elec. Ind us. Co . v. Zenith Rad io Co rp ., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (holding that the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” to survive summary judgment). It simply would not support a jury verdict in Mr. Healy’s favor on his retaliatory discharge claim. Mr. Healy criticizes the district court’s reliance on interview results; he contends that the scores assigned by the panels were themselves discriminatory. He submits that Mr. Blake “ratified decisions made by those who held a discriminatory animus towards Healy,” primarily members of the interview panels. Appellant’s Br. at 22. Mr. Healy, however, presents us with no factual basis for his allegation that the interviewers harbored “a discriminatory animus” toward him. Id . Indeed, he identifies no evidence that any of the members of post-1998 interview panels even k new o f Mr. Healy’s reports of corruption, much less that they were 13 motivated by those reports in scoring the candidates. 13 Mr. Healy deposed only three of the many members of the interview panels: two from pre-1998 interview panels and one who participated on an interview panel for a post-1998 promotion. The first, Tom Special, a COE at Mayfair, sat on a pre-1998 panel that interviewed Mr. Healy for a promotion. He described this interview in his deposition as “interesting,” explaining that “Mr. Healy at some point near the end of the interview launched into a discussion of things going on at, I believe, Mayfair at the (continued...) 22 No. 04-3155 (...continued) time. . . . [W]e were all looking at each other like, what’s this got to do with the interview?” R.78, Ex.5 at 59-60. At most, Special’s testimony demonstrates that, unprovoked, Mr. Healy inappropriately raised his concerns about corruption and theft at Mayfair during an interview. It does not establish that Special or other members of the interview panels chose to not promote Mr. Healy because of his First Amendment activities. Id . at 80 (specifying that the interview was strange because Mr. Healy expressed concerns that were unrelated to questions asked by the panel); see also id . at 62 (explaining that Mr. Healy had difficulty answering standard interview questions, including one “pertaining to electric plants operation”). Moreover, even if Special’s testimony does prove that his motives were improper, there is no evidence that Special influenced post-1998 promotion decisions. Second, Mr. Healy deposed Rob Cannatello. See id ., Ex.10. Like Special, Cannatello did not sit on any of the five interview panels relevant to this appeal and there is no evidence that he influenced the post-1998 promotion decisions at issue in this appeal. Moreover, the portions of the deposition testimony attached to the plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment do not indicate that Cannatello harbored retaliatory animus towards Mr. Healy or that he even knew of Mr. Healy’s reports of corruption at Mayfair. Mr. Healy also deposed Dominick Cantore, Jr., a member of the interview panel for the November 1998 promotion, as well as for the December 1998 promotion. See id ., Ex.19. Cantore, however, was not asked in his deposition whether he was aware of Mr. Healy’s reports of corruption and theft at Mayfair. Nor did he give any indication that his or his colleagues’ decisions were influenced in any way by Mr. Healy’s activities. Id . Mr. Healy points to no other evidence in the record that demonstrates a discriminatory motive or knowledge of his (continued...) No. 04-3155 23 Mr. Healy also submits that the interview scores were “subjective,” that the questions asked of candidates were inconsistent and that the questions asked of him specifically 14 were irrelevant and too personal. Appellant’s Br. at 24-25. It does appear that the DOW prepared a standard list of questions that the interviewers were to ask of all candidates 15 for each position opening. See also R.78, Ex.5 at 65 (Special (...continued) complaints on the part of interviewers. 14 For example, in his deposition, Mr. Healy recounted one of his interviews as follows: The only thing is I would—you know, I talked to some people that interviewed and they’d have—they’d have like different questions, but, you know, some people would be asked six to eight things, some people—I mean, some interviews, it was like three or four questions. ... Now—the one question was, Did you put down who to call in case of emergency? You know, like what does that have to do with—it had nothing to do with steam experience, you know? R.78, Ex.2 at 386-87; se e also id . at 383-84 (recounting that one interviewer asked him what he would do if “someone came to work drunk”); id . at 386-89 (describing other allegedly abnormal questions asked of him at various interviews, including questions about the weather). 15 For example, for the August 1998 ACOE promotion, the interview panel was given a list of nine questions to ask of candidates, with sample answers. See R.75, Ex.Q, Tab 1 at 12. For the November 1998 COE promotion, the panel was given a list of seven questions to ask of candidates, which ranged from, “[T]ell (continued...) 24 No. 04-3155 Dep.) (testifying that the “same questions” were asked of “each candidate”). Mr. Healy alleges that he was asked only five of the nine “standard” questions in his August 1998 ACOE interview; only four of the seven questions in his November 1998 COE interview; only four of the ten questions in his November 1998 ACOE interview; and only five of the twelve questions in his July 2000 ACOE interview. See id ., Ex.1 at 3-5 (Healy Aff.). However, there is no evidence that other, similarly situated candidates were consistently asked these omitted stock questions. Nor is there evidence implicating Mr. Blake in any wrongdoing. The City provided each interviewer a list of questions to ask each candidate. That Mr. Healy may not have been asked all or some of these questions by the members of the interview panel, in the absence of any indication that Mr. Blake requested or mandated that the interviewers depart from the standard list of questions, is the fault of the interviewers, not of Mr. Blake. Moreover, as (...continued) us about your background as an operating engineer,” to, “[W]hy do you believe that you are qualified[?]” Id ., Ex.2 at 6. The same is true of the November 1998 ACOE promotion; there was a list of ten questions provided to the interview panel. Id ., Ex.3 at 9 (including questions about the candidate’s background, as well as technical knowledge about “speed pump[s],” “centrifugal pump[s]” and “flooding condenser[s]”). For the July 2000 interview, twelve questions were provided to the interview panel. Id ., Ex.5 at 7. The record is unclear as to whether the interview panel was given a list of interview questions for the May 2000 interviews. Three separate documents were produced by the DOW, each containing a number of questions purportedly asked of interviewees. Id ., Ex.4 at 7-9. No. 04-3155 25 already discussed, there is no evidence that the interviewers were aware of Mr. Healy’s reports of theft and corruption at Mayfair—much less that they were m o tivated in the asking of questions and the scoring of candidates by his First 16 Amendment activities.