Opinion ID: 3191997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chaib’s showing under the indirect method

Text: To prove discrimination under the indirect method, Chaib must make a prima facie case with evidence that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she met GEO Group’s legitimate job expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated employees outside of the protected class were treated more favorably. Perez v. Thorntons, Inc., 731 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2013). If Chaib can establish a prima facie case, then the burden shifts to GEO Group to give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing her. Id. If GEO Group does so, then the burden shifts back to Chaib to offer evidence that GEO Group’s reason is mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id. Chaib cannot make a prima facie case of discrimination. Even if she were within a protected class, and assuming that termination is an adverse employment action, Chaib fails to satisfy the remaining two requirements. First, she cannot 8 No. 15-1614 show that she was meeting GEO Group’s legitimate job expectations because her undisputed conduct was inconsistent with her statements about the extent of her post-injury impairments, which GEO Group determined was “unbecoming conduct” under its employee conduct standards. Second, Chaib has tried, but failed to identify any other employees who were fairly comparable and were treated more favorably than she was. Therefore, she fails to make a prima facie case of discrimination. But even if Chaib could make out a prima facie case, she cannot show that GEO Group’s stated reason for firing her— unbecoming conduct—was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Hudson v. Chi. Transit Auth., 375 F.3d 552, 561 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Pretext is more than a mistake on the part of the employer; it is a phony excuse.”). The information that GEO Group collected supported its conclusion that Chaib was exaggerating her impairment, conduct that GEO Group reasonably categorized as “unbecoming” and a sufficient basis for termination. Chaib has adduced no evidence to suggest that GEO Group did not sincerely believe that Chaib had exaggerated her impairment and had taken advantage of her workers' compensation claim. Nor has she adduced evidence to suggest that GEO Group did not fire her based on its sincerely held belief. Chaib does not dispute that she was driving and running errands as captured on video, while claiming to be incapable of “normal activity including minimal exertion.” She does not dispute that the neurologist who examined her opined to GEO Group that Chaib was malingering. She does not allege that any of the people who made the decision to fire her harbored bias against her. Instead, she argues that the district No. 15-1614 9 court overlooked the significance of her previous complaints of racism in the workplace. But the employees involved in those incidents were not the people who made the decision to fire her, nor were they involved in GEO Group’s investigation leading up to the termination decision. Because Chaib has not presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that GEO Group terminated Chaib for discriminatory reasons, GEO Group is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court correctly granted summary judgment, and its decision is AFFIRMED.