Opinion ID: 3001776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appropriate Prima Facie Case

Text: Filar argues first that the court used the wrong set of factors to evaluate her prima facie case. The district court applied the familiar four-factor prima facie case for ad- 1 Filar’s brief justifies this decision as resulting from a lack of “direct evidence of discrimination.” But despite the nomenclature,“ ’direct’ proof of discrimination is not limited to near-admissions by the employer that its decisions were based on a proscribed criterion (e.g., ‘You’re too old to work here.’), but also includes circumstantial evidence which suggests discrimination through a longer chain of inferences.” Atanus v. Perry, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 696908,  (7th Cir. 2008). One can question whether the differences that remain between the “direct” and “indirect” methods are more a result of history than logic. In any event, Filar’s claimed lack of “direct” evidence is not necessarily a sufficient reason to scuttle a “direct” method claim. 10 No. 07-1275 verse employment actions requiring proof that (1) Filar was over age forty; (2) her job performance met Dr. Garvey’s expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the employer treated “similarly situated” employees at least ten years younger more favorably. See Burks v. Wisconsin Dept. of Transp., 464 F.3d 744, 750-51 (7th Cir. 2006). On appeal, Filar instead characterizes her displacement as being part of a mini-reduction in force. When an employee is dismissed as part of a miniRIF, the dismissed worker’s duties are spread out among the remaining employees. Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Inc., 470 F.3d 685, 690 (7th Cir. 2006). The retention of younger employees who take on the dismissed employee’s responsibilities “is nothing more than a demonstration of more favorable treatment, particularly tailored to the factual circumstances of a mini-RIF case.” Id. at 690 n.1. As a result, the prima facie case in this context swaps the fourth requirement in the basic framework—that a similarly situated younger employee was treated more favorably—with another—that her duties were ab- sorbed by younger workers who were retained following the mini-RIF. Id. at 690-691. Thus, in Filar’s estimation, the district court applied the wrong standard and thus erred in requiring proof that “similarly situated” younger teachers were treated more favorably. The district court cannot be faulted for failing to employ the mini-RIF standard because a mini-RIF claim was not fairly before it. Filar’s complaint did not include allegations consistent with a mini-RIF claim. And in her response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Filar argued that a reduction in force, the regularsized variety, precipitated her displacement. As this Court has explained, the relevant factual inquiry in a reductionNo. 07-1275 11 in-force case is not the same as a mini-RIF case. In the former, a plaintiff’s position was eliminated entirely and will not be refilled whereas “[t]he point of a mini-RIF unlike a true RIF, is that the job really was not eliminated at all; because the fired employee’s duties were absorbed by others, they were effectively ‘replaced,’ not eliminated.” Bellaver v. Quanex Corp., 200 F.3d 485, 495 (7th Cir. 2000). The practical effect of this formal difference, one that is fatal to Filar’s claims, is that the type of proof expected of a mini-RIF claim is different than that stemming from a formal RIF. For her mini-RIF claim, Filar had to show that her position was “absorbed” by the remaining younger co-workers, not just eliminated. Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc., 209 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir. 2000). But Filar did not purport to make this showing in either her memorandum in opposition to the Board’s motion for summary judgment or her Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts.2 Instead, the thrust of her RIF argument consisted of a statement that “younger workers . . . were favorably retained in the RIF while [she] was displaced.” An apt statement of her evidentiary burden in a RIF 2 Filar’s presentation of the evidence in her Local Rule 56.1 statement of the facts was also inconsistent with a mini-RIF claim. On appeal, she only points to two facts from her statement—that Rydberg and Monaco taught computers in the 1999 school year—to support her mini-RIF claim. That these two were teaching computers, a subject that Filar had taught prior to displacement, does not mean that they “absorbed” her duties after her departure. To show that, something more would be needed—for example, a showing that this was an increase in their duties. Michas, 209 F.3d at 693. In any event, the mini-RIF claim was simply not before the district court, as a legal matter or as represented by the facts. 12 No. 07-1275 claim, but not a mini-RIF one. In short, the district court did not err in its treatment of Filar’s claim because it was never asked to treat such a claim. See Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F.3d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the district court applied the right prima facie case.