Opinion ID: 2996429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Race-Discrimination Claims

Text: Before we leave the subject of Ajayi’s EEOC charge altogether, we must determine which of Ajayi’s racediscrimination claims are properly before this Court on appeal. In her EEOC charge, Ajayi complained of only three specific instances of discrimination: (1) denial of training, (2) denial of promotion, and (3) a February 2000 demotion with a corresponding pay cut. 12 No. 02-2670 The district court expanded this list to include a number of events that Ajayi later complained were discriminatory in her deposition or in her summary-judgment briefings: “(4) [Aramark’s] practice of auditing black cashiers more frequently than non-black cashiers; (5) [Ramiro’s] inquiry about [Ajayi’s] handling of a time card situation with one of the cashiers; (6) [Kaminski’s] statement in a 1999 meeting that [Ajayi] and [Ramiro] were incompatible and that the company would not contest her unemployment claim if she wished to quit; (7) [Aramark’s] strict enforcement of the company tardiness policy against [Ajayi] but not against Hispanic employees; (8) [Aramark’s] requirement that [Ajayi] perform duties not required of [Lourdes]; (9) [Ajayi’s] subordinates’ failure to follow her instructions; (10) [Ramiro’s] authorization of overtime for a Hispanic employee at a time when the employees were told that overtime was not allowed; (11) [Ramiro’s] failure to reprimand [Lourdes] for improper conduct; . . . (12) [Ramiro’s] destruction of customer comment cards that contained negative comments about [Lourdes]”; and (13) Ajayi’s termination. Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., Inc., No. 00 C 4403, 2002 WL 1160945, at  (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2002). The district court ruled that nine of these thirteen actions—(1) the denial of training, (4) the discriminatory auditing practice, (5) the time-card situation, (6) Kaminski’s unemployment-claim statement, (7) Aramark’s selective enforcement of the tardiness policy, (9) her subordinates’ insubordination, (10) Ramiro’s authorization of overtime for a Hispanic employee, and (11 & 12) Ramiro’s failure to discipline Lourdes and alleged destruction of negative customer comment cards—were nonactionable because they had no tangible, negative impact on Ajayi’s employment. Id. The district court then held that three of the remaining four actions—(2) the failure to promote, (3) the demotion, and (13) her termination—were “paradigm adverse employment actions,” but held that (8) Ramiro’s No. 02-2670 13 requiring of Ajayi, but not Lourdes, to make coffee and clean was not; the two employees had different job titles at the time and the fact that Aramark assigned different duties and responsibilities to each did not raise an inference of adverse action. Id. Finally, the district court held that (3) the demotion was not an adverse employment action in this case because it was undisputed that Ajayi was never actually demoted. Id. at . That left as actionable only (2) the failure-to-promote and (13) the termination claims. In her opening brief before this Court, Ajayi now alleges only four actions were discriminatory: (2) the failure to promote; (3) the demotion; (7) Aramark’s selective enforcement of the tardiness policy, which culminated in Ramiro’s February 4, 1999 write up; and (13) her termination. Ajayi has therefore waived any argument that the district court erred in holding that the remaining actions—(1), (4), (5), (6), and (8-12)—had no “tangible, negative impact” on Ajayi’s employment. See Sere v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 852 F.2d 285, 287 (7th Cir. 1988) (“We consistently and evenhandedly have applied the waiver doctrine when appellants have failed to raise an issue in their opening brief.”) (citing cases)); see also Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 302 F.3d 735, 741 (7th Cir. 2002) (“By neglecting to raise the discriminatory job assignments and retaliation claims in his opening brief . . . [appellant] waived review of these two issues.”) (citing inter alia Gabriel v. United States, 30 F.3d 75, 78 (7th Cir. 1994), and Kauthar SDN BHD v. Sternberg, 149 F.3d 659, 667-68 (7th Cir. 1998) (“We have stated that failure to address one of the [district court’s] holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.”)). It is not enough for Ajayi merely to refer generally to these actions in her statement of facts; if she intends to challenge this aspect of the district court’s ruling, she must identify the legal issue, raise it in the argu14 No. 02-2670 ment section of her brief, and support her argument with pertinent authority. See Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 231 F.3d 1049, 1058 n.5 (7th Cir. 2000); Moore v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 221 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir. 2000). Ajayi has failed to take issue with this aspect of the district court’s ruling and thus has waived any argument that it was rendered in error. Regarding the remaining four actions, Aramark contends that two of them—(7) the February 4, 1999 write up and (13) the termination—are beyond the scope of Ajayi’s EEOC charge. The scope-of-the-charge rule prevents Ajayi from pursuing her claim that the February 4, 1999 written warning for tardiness was motivated by race. Because a Title VII claim must describe the same conduct as the plaintiff’s underlying charge and because Ajayi’s EEOC charge never mentions or challenges this warning, she cannot pursue that claim here. See Cheek, 31 F.3d at 501 (“Because an employer may discriminate on the basis of sex in numerous ways, a claim of sex discrimination in an EEOC charge and a claim of sex discrimination in a complaint are not . . . reasonably related just because they both assert forms of sex discrimination. [There must be] a factual relationship between them . . . . [, which means] the EEOC charge and the complaint must, at minimum, describe the same conduct and implicate the same individuals.”); see also Conley v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 215 F.3d 703, 710 (7th Cir. 2000). Ajayi argues that she complained about Ramiro’s selective treatment generally in her charge and that the February 4, 1999 write up is merely a specific example of his discriminating against Ajayi in favor of Hispanic employees, which would have been uncovered by an EEOC investigation into the other events. Reading Ajayi’s charge, we find no general allegation regarding Ramiro’s conduct that would have uncovered the February 4, 1999 write up as a discriminatory act. To the contrary, Ajayi referred No. 02-2670 15 to three specific instances of discriminatory conduct in her charge: the denial of training, the denial of promotion, and her demotion. In this regard her case is similar to the facts we confronted in Rush v. McDonald’s Corp., 966 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992), in which the plaintiff’s charge complained of racial discrimination in the denial of a promotion and the plaintiff’s discharge only. There we held that three additional instances of racial discrimination alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint—denial of benefits, harassment, and adoption of a racially discriminatory policy—were not cognizable because the plaintiff had not specifically described them in her EEOC charge. Rush, 966 F.2d at 1110-12. At the time she filed her charge, Ajayi was aware that Ramiro had written her up for tardiness and insubordination. By her own admission, she suspected at the time that Ramiro’s actions towards her were motivated by unlawful animus. Should Ajayi have wanted also to complain about the write up as a discriminatory action, she could have, and should have, included a description of it in her charge. See McKenzie v. Ill. Dep’t of Trans., 92 F.3d 473, 482-83 (7th Cir. 1996) (two acts of allegedly retaliatory conduct were not cognizable when acts occurred before, but were not included in, plaintiff’s EEOC charge). We need not consider whether Ajayi’s Title VII termination claim lies within the scope of her charge. The district court in its discretion allowed Ajayi constructively to amend her complaint to include a termination claim under § 1981. Although Count III of Ajayi’s complaint only advanced a retaliatory-discharge claim under that statute, the district court observed that Ajayi’s summaryjudgment materials did not specify whether she sought to advance her termination claim under just Title VII or under both statutes. Realizing that Ajayi’s Title VII termination claim would likely be barred procedurally because it would fall outside the scope of her EEOC charge 16 No. 02-2670 (which was filed before she was fired), the district court interpreted her summary-judgment materials as advancing the claim under § 1981 (which has no chargefiling requirement) as well and addressed the termination claim’s merits. The district court would not have abused its discretion if it refused to do so, see Shanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996) (“A plaintiff may not amend his complaint through arguments in his brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.”), especially since Ajayi never argued for the amendment. But neither did the district court abuse its discretion in allowing the amendment and considering the termination claim under § 1981. Because we must address the merits of Ajayi’s termination claim under § 1981,4 we will assume arguendo that her Title VII claim falls within the scope of her EEOC charge. In sum, Ajayi’s opening brief limited the number of actions she alleges were motivated by racial discrimination. And one of the four remaining actions identified in her opening brief is outside the scope of her EEOC charge, which leaves only the demotion, failure-to-promote, and termination claims as viable avenues of attack on appeal. We address each in turn. 4 We leave for another day the question of whether under § 1981 Ajayi can state a claim for discriminatory or retaliatory discharge. See Gonzalez v. Ingersoll Mining Co., 133 F.3d 1025, 1035 (7th Cir. 1998) (expressing doubts, in dicta, that at-will employees may sustain claims under § 1981 arising out of the termination of their employment). But see Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 165 F.3d 1015, 1018-19 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that an at-will employment relationship is sufficiently contractual in nature to support § 1981 claims); see also Skinner v. Maritz, Inc., 253 F.3d 337 (8th Cir. 2001); Lauture v. IBM Corp., 216 F.3d 258 (2d Cir. 2000); Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 1999); Fadeyi v. Planned Parenthood Assoc. of Lubbock, Inc., 160 F.3d 1048 (5th Cir. 1998). No. 02-2670 17
Because Ajayi has no direct evidence of race discrimination, she must satisfy the McDonnell Douglas burdenshifting analysis. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this approach, Ajayi must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which then shifts the burden of proof to Aramark to provide some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged employment decisions. Id. at 802. If Aramark does so, Ajayi retains the ultimate burden to show that the proffered reasons are pretextual. See Schuster, 327 F.3d at 574. Ajayi can’t establish a prima facie case of discrimination on her demotion claim. She needs to show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the job or was meeting Aramark’s legitimate expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) Aramark treated similarly situated employees outside of the protected class more favorably. Foster v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 168 F.3d 1029, 1035 (7th Cir. 1999). Although, as the district court noted, a demotion is a paradigm adverse employment action, see Traylor v. Brown, 295 F.3d 783, 788 (7th Cir. 2002), Ajayi cannot establish that she suffered an adverse employment action here because she, in fact, never was demoted. Around February 9, 2000, Aramark gave Ajayi a memorandum stating that her position was being eliminated and that she would be demoted two weeks later. But as Ajayi admits, the threatened demotion never actually happened. An unfulfilled threat, which results in no material harm, is not materially adverse. See id. (“[A]n employee must show that material harm has resulted from . . . the challenged actions.” (quotation omitted)); cf. Oest v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 240 F.3d 605, 613 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding oral and written reprimands received by plaintiff under progressive discipline policy did not sufficiently implicate “tangible job consequences”); Sweeney v. West, 149 18 No. 02-2670 F.3d 550, 556 (7th Cir. 1998). The district court’s grant of summary judgment on this claim on this basis was not erroneous.
Although Aramark didn’t promote Ajayi and although that inaction is materially adverse to her employment, Ajayi still cannot establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. The claim fails because Ajayi cannot show that she was treated less favorably than employees outside her protected class who were similarly situated; that is, employees who were “directly comparable to her in all material respects.” Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 2002). To determine whether two employees are directly comparable, a court looks at all the relevant factors, which most often include whether the employees (i) held the same job description, (ii) were subject to the same standards, (iii) were subordinate to the same supervisor, and (iv) had comparable experience, education, and other qualifications—provided the employer considered these latter factors in making the personnel decision. Id. Above all, we are mindful that courts do not sit as super personnel departments, second-guessing an employer’s facially legitimate business decisions. See generally Wells v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 289 F.3d 1001, 1007 (7th Cir. 2002). In arguing that she was discriminatorily denied a promotion to food service director for 311, Ajayi says that Bluck, the former food service director for 311, was similarly situated. The comparison is faulty. The two never held the same job description. Bluck held the position of food service director at 311 from August 1998 to June 1999. Before his move to 311 in August of 1998, Bluck had been a food service director at Aramark for over ten years. During that time, Ajayi was the FOHS at 111. Ajayi never No. 02-2670 19 held the food-service-director position (she’d have no failure to promote claim if she did). Even if we were to look past the differing job descriptions and entertain Ajayi’s argument that the two nonetheless were subject to the same performance standards— the target cost projections for 311—we would not find the two employees to be directly comparable. Ajayi claims that Bluck never met those target projections and yet never suffered an adverse employment action as a result. On the other hand, Ajayi’s failure to meet the targets (while at the same time success in producing better numbers than those Bluck had managed to produce) resulted in the denial of her promotion to Bluck’s job. The comparison is not apt. Bluck’s ten-year experience would entitle him to more patience and deference from Aramark than Ajayi, who had no proven performance record in a foodservice-director position. Furthermore, Ajayi and Bluck were “operating” 311 under different conditions. Aramark’s cafeteria at 311 had been open for less than a year when Bluck resigned. Aramark could legitimately expect 311 to generate smaller profits during this start-up phase. By the time Aramark refused to promote Ajayi in October 1999, 311 had been operating at a loss for well over a year. Given these differences, Ajayi cannot legitimately compare herself to Bluck. Because Ajayi has not shown that similarly situated individuals outside the protected class were treated more favorably, she has failed to make out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. The district court’s grant of summary judgment on Ajayi’s failure-to-promote claim was not error.
Ajayi’s claim that she was terminated because of her race fails for the same reason: she has not shown that 20 No. 02-2670 she was treated less favorably than similarly situated individuals outside the protected class. Here, Ajayi claims Lourdes was similarly situated. As stated above, however, the two are similarly situated only if they were directly comparable. They were not. At all relevant times they had different job titles and responsibilities: Lourdes was a cashier; Ajayi was first a FOHS at 111, where she was Lourdes supervisor, and then unit supervisor at 311. It is not surprising that Aramark would both demand and expect more from Ajayi in her supervisory role, which would explain any discrepancy—if there ever was one—between how Aramark treated Ajayi and Lourdes in handling violations of the company’s tardiness or vacation policies or in responding to customer complaints. See Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 802 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding plaintiff supervisor unable to make prima facie case for sexual harassment on her demotion and transfer claims because proposed comparable was nonsupervisory employee and, therefore, not nearly identical). In short, Ajayi could legitimately expect to be held to a higher standard as an FOHS or unit supervisor than that to which Aramark held Lourdes as a cashier. Because Ajayi has not shown that similarly situated individuals outside the protected class were treated more favorably, she has failed to make out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Aramark on Ajayi’s termination claim.