Opinion ID: 3001630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas

Text: 2 This “two‐week” period is the time between when he showed up for work at Lakeside VA on October 18 and when he formally retired on November 1. However, on November 18, after sitting at his desk for two hours “with nothing to do,” Curry informed Supervisor Rhein that he was going to retire, and then met with Harvey to discuss the retirement process. This is apparently the same two‐week period that Rhein claims to have given Curry the assignment to update security policies. Thus Curry’s final decision to retire (he had informed others earlier) apparently came after only two hours of no work, not two weeks. No. 06‐4071 Page 6 We turn now to the question of whether Curry has made out a prima facie case of employment discrimination. Curry’s constructive discharge claim clearly fails; what is less clear is whether he has established that his reassignment itself constitutes an adverse employment action sufficient to satisfy the McDonnell Douglas requirement. We have noted that “the range of employer conduct that constitutes an adverse employment action is broad, but not unlimited.” Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d 892, 902 (7th Cir. 2003). An adverse employment action must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. Crady v. Liberty Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1993). Such an action could be a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wages or salary, a less‐distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, a significant decrease in material responsibilities, etc. Id.. Curry’s change in title, his transfer to a new location, and his loss of his position as Chief of Police arguably suggest that he suffered an adverse employment action, but on the other hand he suffered no loss of benefits or wages. See Tart v. Ill. Power Co., 366 F.3d 461, 474 (7th Cir. 2004) (noting that “title change and different reporting relationship” may be “largely semantic ‘where the employee’s salary, benefits, and level of responsibility would remain unchanged’” (citation omitted)). Curry arguably experienced only a lateral transfer to a different division under a different supervisor, with a chance to improve on some of the management problems that had been described in the OSLE report. As noted above, employees are ordinarily expected to remain employed while seeking redress for claims of discrimination; had Curry done so, we would be in a better position to evaluate the level of responsibility and quality of work that Curry was assigned in his new position. On balance, therefore, we conclude that Curry has failed to carry his burden of proving an adverse employment action.
Despite all of this, however, Curry insists that he did establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race. He asserts that it is “undisputed” that he met the first three requirements of the prima facie case—membership in a protected class, meeting legitimate expectations, and adverse employment action—and seeks to focus our attention on the issue of whether similarly situated employees who were not black were treated more favorably. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802‐03. Curry identifies three comparators: Frank Watts, the white Chief of Police at the VA Hospital in Brecksville, Ohio, who was not reassigned even after numerous allegations of serious police misconduct were found to be substantiated; Dr. Woods, the white Chief of Surgery at the Westside VA who retained his position even after a body of independent investigators uncovered “egregious violations of national standards”; and Dr. Nand, the Indian‐American Chief of Behavioral Health Services at the Westside VA who was not removed from her position despite internal reports reflecting mismanagement in her service area. In addition, according to Curry, all three of these individuals were allowed to participate in the inspection process, though he No. 06‐4071 Page 7 was not. The VA counters, however, that Curry has not met any requirements of the prima facie case except showing membership in a protected class. The district court did not address the elements of the prima face case, see Coco v. Elmwood Care Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1997). In this case, however, the question of similarly situated employees is easily resolved in favor of the VA. Curry admitted that nearly all of his information about these three people was based on hearsay or double hearsay—information obtained through the “grapevine.” See Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 733 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that job applicant’s personal belief carries no weight in summary judgment analysis). Curry also admitted that he never saw any reports sustaining the allegations of mismanagement or wrongdoing against these other VA employees. Unlike Curry’s situation, there is no evidence to show that a team of outside investigators recommended reassignment for any of three people he names. That is a critical factor in this case. Finally, Curry was replaced in his position by another black man, which further weakens his argument that the VA eliminated him because of his race. In sum, Curry did not present any admissible evidence that similarly situated employees outside of his protected class were treated more favorably. See Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., 336 F.3d 520, 531‐32 (7th Cir. 2003). C. Meeting employer’s legitimate expectations and pretext Ultimately, though, this case comes down to Curry’s performance, which the district court chose to address as a question of pretext. See Hague v. Thompson Distrib. Co., 436 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Normally a court should first determine if a plaintiff has established a prima facie case. . . . However, if the plaintiffs argue that they have performed satisfactorily and the employer is lying about the business expectations required for the position, the second prong and the pretext question seemingly merge.”). Curry argues that he has produced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the VA’s reason for reassigning him was pretextual. He points to deposition evidence by Blakely, who is also black, who maintained that the entire investigation was “atypical” and “unfair” to Curry and offered her opinion that his reassignment “may” have been due to his race. She identified as irregularities her lack of participation in the exit interview, Curry’s inability to participate in the investigation, and the lack of time to respond to the investigators’ findings. Blakely also disagreed with the findings of mismanagement made against Curry in the OSLE report. To constitute pretext, the VA’s reason for reassigning Curry must be a lie. See Burks v. Wis. Dep’t of Transp., 464 F.3d 744, 754 (7th Cir. 2006). It does not matter whether an employer made the right decision, so long as its justification was an honest one. Id. “A pretext . . . is a deliberate falsehood.” Forrester v. Rauland‐Borg Corp., 453 F.3d 416, 419 (7th No. 06‐4071 Page 8 Cir. 2006). To prove pretext, a plaintiff must do more than establish that the employer’s decision “was mistaken, ill considered or foolish,” Jordan v. Summers, 205 F.3d 337, 343 (7th Cir. 2000), and instead the plaintiff must prove that the employer did not honestly believe the reason given for its action, Hague, 436 F.3d at 823. Blakely’s testimony and the inferences Curry draws from it are not sufficient to show that the VA’s reason for his reassignment was pretextual and that its actual reason was discriminatory. Blakely correctly labeled the OSLE procedures “atypical.” An inspection by the Washington office with final oversight prompted by persistent complaints is unusual, to say the least. Curry questions the procedures the OSLE followed, but the OSLE’s methods have no bearing on the honesty of the VA’s belief that Curry ought to be reassigned. And the wisdom of that reassignment is not before us. See Traylor v. Brown, 295 F.3d 783, 790 (7th Cir. 2002) (explaining that this court does “not sit as a super‐personnel department over employers scrutinizing and second‐guessing every decision they make”). Curry’s arguments regarding pretext do not rest on facts that genuinely call into question the honesty of the decision‐maker; instead they imply a conspiracy to remove him from his position through the guise of a legitimate investigation into departmental misconduct. We have previously said that we are “skeptical of such elaborate plot theories.” See Murray v. Chi. Transit Auth., 252 F.3d 880, 888 (7th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The uncontested fact that Curry’s successor to his position was also black further belies his assertion that the VA was operating under a negative racial bias. AFFIRMED.