Opinion ID: 2995999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grayson’s Discrimination Claim

Text: Finally, Grayson argues that the trial judge committed error by granting the Service summary judgment on his discrimination and constructive discharge claims. Grayson offered no direct evidence that the Service discriminated against him because of his race and so proceeded under the familiar burden-shifting test set forth initially in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this test, Grayson was required to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination and demonstrate that: 1) he was a member of a protected class; 2) he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations; 3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) other, similarly situated employees who were not members of the protected class were treated more favorably. Paluck v. Gooding Rubber Co., 221 F.3d 1003, 1012 (7th Cir. 2000). After Grayson establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the burden of production shifts to the Service to demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment action. Id. Once the Service has proffered a legitimate non-discriminatory No. 01-3160 15 reason for its employment action, the burden returns to Grayson to demonstrate that the Service’s proffered reason was pretextual. Id. In order to establish pretext a plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer’s proffered explanation for an employment decision is a dishonest explanation, rather than merely an error. Kulumani v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, 224 F.3d 681, 685 (7th Cir. 2000). We have frequently warned litigants that the prima facie case must be established and not merely incanted. Wells v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 289 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2002); Coco v. Elmwood Care, Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1997). Given this admonition, it is interesting to note that nowhere in his brief does Grayson dispute the Service’s claim that well over 100 agents in the Chicago Field Office lodged complaints with the management review team about Grayson’s heavy-handed, moralereducing, managerial style. Likewise, Grayson fails to dispute the Service’s claim that it received numerous complaints about Grayson’s solicitation of personal favors from those whom he was charged with the duty to protect. Given the magnitude and severity of the complaints, Grayson has failed to establish that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations. Although Grayson attempts to argue that his prior record demonstrates that he was meeting the Service’s legitimate expectations, the issue is simply whether he was meeting the Service’s expectations at the time of the discharge. Brummett v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., 284 F.3d 742, 745 (7th Cir. 2002). Grayson also protests that the Service overreacted to the numerous complaints regarding his behavior. But a public official who solicits bribes and sexually harasses his subordinates cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations. 16 No. 01-3160 We disagree with Grayson’s contention that he can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because the Service applied its employment expectations against him in a discriminatory manner. According to Grayson’s theory, three white SAICs who had similar sexual harassment complaints lodged against them by a female subordinate were not subjected to an investigation into matters beyond the sexual harassment complaint. Thus, Grayson believes he was singled out for a racially discriminatory investigation and argues that the employee complaints and other evidence uncovered by the management review team are the fruits of a poisonous tree and cannot be used as the basis for an adverse employment action. When a plaintiff produces evidence sufficient to raise an inference that the employer applied its legitimate expectations in a disparate manner, the second and fourth prongs of McDonnell Douglas merge, allowing the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by establishing that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. See, e.g., Peele v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 319, 329-30 (7th Cir. 2002); Curry v. Menard, 270 F.3d 473, 478 (7th Cir. 2001); Johnson v. West, 218 F.3d 723, 733 (7th Cir. 2000); Flores v. Preferred Tech. Group, 182 F.3d 512, 515 (7th Cir. 1999). To meet his burden of demonstrating that another employee is “similarly situated,” a plaintiff must demonstrate that there is someone who is directly comparable to him in all material respects. Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 2002); Greer v. Board of Educ., 267 F.3d 723, 726 (7th Cir. 2001); Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 618 (7th Cir. 2000). In this inquiry, a “court must look at all relevant factors, the number of which depends on the context of the case.” Radue, 219 F.3d at 617. In his attempt to find other SAICs who were similarly situated, Grayson argues that three white male SAICs were No. 01-3160 17 accused of sexual harassment or depressing morale. According to Grayson, none of the three white SAICs was the subject of an extensive management review, which he believes demonstrates the Service treated him differently because of his race. Grayson’s theory hinges upon his belief that if the Service had only investigated Special Agent Whalen’s complaint via telephone, rather than by sending two fact-finders and conducting an open meeting in the Chicago Field Office, that none of his nefarious and inappropriate actions would have surfaced. Grayson’s speculation is completely without merit. When the fact-finders came to Chicago, they were approached independently by several agents who sought to voice complaints about Grayson. No other SAIC, regardless of race, had been the subject of so many embarrassing and offensive complaints as Grayson, and Grayson identifies absolutely no evidence in the record to suggest that it was the way in which the fact finding was conducted, as opposed to his own shameful conduct, that generated so many complaints. In a last-ditch effort to preserve his appeal, Grayson reaches out to find a similarly situated employee by again raising the specter of the “Good Ol’ Boy Round-up” as evidence that the Service condoned racism and singled out African American SAICs for discriminatory treatment. Grayson theorizes that an Assistant SAIC in another office may have at some time participated in the Roundups and that Director Bowron, who was the SAIC in Atlanta at the time when the Roundups were in their heyday, should have investigated and disciplined this unnamed Assistant SAIC. Grayson’s speculation has no evidentiary support. Contrary to Grayson’s claim that agents who participated in the Roundups were never disciplined or investigated, the record demonstrates that participation by Service agents in the Roundups was thoroughly investigated by the Department of Justice and Department of Treasury Inspector General’s Office and Congress. Gray18 No. 01-3160 son presented not a shred of evidence to suggest that Director Bowron left any ASAIC who allegedly participated in the Roundups undisciplined. Grayson has failed to point out any other SAIC who was the subject of more than 100 complaints ranging from depressing morale to sexual harassment to soliciting personal favors, and thus his attempt to locate a similarly situated employee is futile. Because pointing to a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably is an essential element of his prima facie case, Grayson’s discrimination and constructive discharge claims must fail. Even if Grayson could establish a prima facie case, he could not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his transfer and detail (and eventually the request for resignation) were pretextual. “A pretext for discrimination means more than an unusual act; it means something worse than a business error; pretext means deceit used to cover one’s tracks.” Grube v. Lau Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 723, 730 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). To demonstrate pretext, Grayson must demonstrate that the Service’s articulated reason for its actions either: 1) had no basis in fact; 2) did not actually motivate its decision; or 3) was insufficient to motivate its decision. Velasco v. Illinois Dept. of Human Serv., 246 F.3d 1010, 1017 (7th Cir. 2001). Grayson engages in mental gymnastics in an attempt to convince us that the Service did not honestly believe, based on the results of the investigation, that he was not suited to manage the Chicago Field Office. For instance, he quibbles that the Service’s assessment of his office’s morale was erroneous because only 36 of 82 employees complained of low morale, meaning that 56 did not. He also suggests that several agents stated that they were not intimidated by him, and thus the Service’s assessNo. 01-3160 19 ment was erroneous. Lastly, Grayson characterizes his solicitation of personal favors as a “petty reason.” But in determining whether an employer’s proffered reason for an employment action was pretextual, we are not concerned with the correctness or desirability of reasons offered for employment decisions, but rather the issue of whether the employer honestly believes in the reasons it offers. Wade v. Lerner New York, Inc., 243 F.3d 319, 323 (7th Cir. 2001). As we often comment, “the federal anti-discrimination laws do not authorize judges to sit as a kind of ‘super-personnel department’ weighing the prudence of employment decisions,” and Grayson’s selfserving quarrels with the legitimacy of the Service’s investigation cannot establish pretext. Gleason v. Mesirow Financial, Inc., 118 F.3d 1134, 1139 (7th Cir. 1997). Grayson fails to direct us to anywhere in the record to suggest that the Service did not honestly believe, based on more than 100 complaints from employees, former employees, and citizens of the community Grayson protected, that Grayson engaged in behavior that warranted removing him from his position as the SAIC of the Chicago Field Office.