Opinion ID: 3191997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chaib’s showing under the direct method

Text: Chaib does not offer any direct evidence that GEO Group admitted to discriminating against her. For circumstantial evidence of discrimination, Chaib relies exclusively on the incidents that took place between October 2011 and February 2012, in which she accused co-workers of making racist comments to her and harassing her. For Chaib to prevail, these incidents must paint a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” sufficient to permit a jury to infer that discrimination motivated her termination. Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 996 (7th Cir. 2012). Chaib focuses particularly on the conduct of Lieutenant Davis (whom Chaib accuses of numerous threatening, harassing, and racist actions) and the posting of a racially offensive comment on her workplace computer (which Chaib contends GEO Group did not adequately investigate). No. 15-1614 7 But even assuming that these disturbing incidents happened exactly as Chaib alleges, they were unrelated to the events and investigation that led to GEO Group’s decision to fire Chaib. Gorence v. Eagle Food Ctrs., Inc., 242 F.3d 759, 762 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[E]vidence of inappropriate remarks not shown to be directly related to the employment decision may not support a direct-method-of-proof case.”). There is no evidence that Lieutenant Davis participated in GEO Group’s decision to fire Chaib. Without some connection between the offensive conduct that Chaib described and the termination decision, no reasonable jury could make the requisite inference that she was fired for discriminatory reasons. Chaib’s directmethod argument fails.