Opinion ID: 2778730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, “re- viewing the record and the inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Grayson v. City of Chicago, 317 F.3d 745, 749 (7th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The FMLA entitles any eligible employee to take up to twelve workweeks of leave during each twelve-month period in order to, among other things, care for a parent with a serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C). The 3Carter does not appeal the district court’s decision on any of his claims against Tolia. 8 No. 13-3367 FMLA also makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who exercises his FMLA rights. Id. § 2615(a)(2), (b); see also Burnett v. LFW Inc., 472 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The FMLA makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with an employee's attempt to exercise any FMLA rights. It also forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee who exercises FMLA rights.”) (internal citations omitted). As for Section 1981, that statute protects the right of all persons “to make and enforce contracts” regardless of race, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), and it authorizes claims for retaliation, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 445 (2008). Retaliation occurs “when an employer takes an adverse employment action against an employee for opposing impermissible discrimination.” Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 896 (7th Cir. 2012). Individual employees can be held liable under Section 1981 if they “participated” in the retaliatory conduct. Bray, 681 F.3d at 896–97. We review both FMLA and Section 1981 retaliation claims under the same framework. To succeed, Carter must demonstrate that: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal connection between the two. Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th Cir. 2009). Carter’s FMLA leave and prior lawsuit both constitute protected activity, and we assume for the purpose of this appeal that the failure to promote Carter constitutes an adverse employment action. The question, then, turns on causal connection. Carter may establish this connection by using the familiar direct or indirect methods of proof. Bray, 681 F.3d at 896–97; No. 13-3367 9 Stephens, 569 F.3d at 786–87. Carter proceeds under both, and we consider each in turn.
Under the direct route, Carter may provide either “smoking gun” or circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent. Smoking gun evidence typically requires an admission of discriminatory intent. Tank v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 758 F.3d 800, 805 (7th Cir. 2014). Pieces of circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, may be combined to support an inference of discriminatory intent. This circumstantial evidence may include “(1) suspicious timing, ambiguous oral or written statements, or behavior toward, or comments directed at, other employees in the protected group; (2) evidence, whether or not rigorously statistical, that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received systematically better treatment; and (3) evidence that the employee was qualified for the job in question but was passed over in favor of a person outside the protected class and the employer’s reason is a pretext for discrimination.” Hutt v. AbbVie Products LLC, 757 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2014). Here, Carter does not provide smoking gun evidence of retaliatory intent; he instead relies on circumstantial evidence to support his FMLA and Section 1981 claims. But this approach is unavailing. Carter fails to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of retaliation on either claim. Accordingly, Carter’s FMLA claim against CSU and his Section 1981 claim against Simyar fail under the direct route. As to the FMLA claim against CSU, Carter argues that he completed his protected FMLA activity in close temporal proximity to the acting chair appointment, and that close 10 No. 13-3367 proximity raises suspicion of discriminatory intent. But the facts do not support his argument. Carter returned from FMLA leave in March and was involved in disputes related to his post-FMLA assignment through April. The acting chair appointment occurred in November, creating a temporal proximity of seven months. Although we have previously held that “when temporal proximity is one among several tiles in an evidentiary mosaic depicting retaliatory motive, suspicious timing … can sometimes raise an inference of causal connection[,]” Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835, 860 (7th Cir. 2012), we do not find a span of seven months to be suspicious. 4 See Naficy v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs., 697 F.3d 504, 513 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding a ninemonth gap did “little to raise suspicion”); Jajeh v. County of Cook, 678 F.3d 560, 570 (7th Cir. 2012) (concluding that a fivemonth gap between complaint of discrimination and adverse employment action did not amount to suspicious timing); Leonard v. E. Ill. Univ., 606 F.3d 428, 432 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding a six-month lag between complaint and failure-topromote “too long to infer a link between the two”). To salvage his argument, Carter attempts to piggyback the acting chair appointment claim onto his chair appointment claim. The chair appointment occurred about one month after Carter settled the dispute regarding the exercise of his FMLA rights. The acting chair appointment occurred another six months after that. Carter in effect asks us to treat the acting chair appointment as a continuation of the chair appointment. But one is not the continuation of the other, as 4For whatever reason, Carter does not challenge an appointment that happened earlier in time than the appointment of Atha Hunt—the appointment of the first interim chair, Barbara Roper. No. 13-3367 11 evidenced by the unique factual circumstances and appointment processes surrounding each. In addition, Carter’s chair appointment claim went to jury trial, and that jury decided against him. If Carter were correct that the two claims were somehow linked, any such link would be harmful, not helpful, to his case: the jury verdict is dispositive against him. Consequently, we reject this argument. Regarding the Section 1981 claim, Carter also raises a temporal argument. He claims that the temporal proximity between his protected Section 1981 lawsuits and the failure to appoint him acting chair supports an inference of discrimination. Carter’s 2007 lawsuit was still pending at the time of the acting chair appointment, so Carter argues that a rational juror could conclude that the timing of the failure-to-appoint was suspicious relative to the discrimination suit. Also relating to his Section 1981 claim, Carter argues that a deposition statement made by Simyar provides evidence of Simyar’s animus toward Carter for having filed a prior discrimination lawsuit. Specifically, Simyar was questioned about the sanctions recommended by Assistant Vice President Jefferson in April 2007. Simyar was asked whether those financial sanctions had ever actually been imposed against Carter, or whether no further action had been taken after Jefferson recommended them. Simyar responded that he believed Carter had not been sanctioned, saying that “if it would have happened, Professor Carter would write me letters and file grievance[s] and complaints and so on.” He had not received any such letters or grievances, so he believed Carter had not been sanctioned. Carter interprets this statement as a veiled reference to the prior discrimination lawsuit he filed (as well as his other 12 No. 13-3367 grievances and lawsuits over the years), laying bare Simyar’s animus against Carter. Read in context, however, Carter’s interpretation of Simyar’s statement is not a reasonable one. Simyar’s statement merely evinces a chain of logical reasoning. When asked whether Carter had been sanctioned, and without any direct evidence upon which to answer the question, Simyar reasoned that Carter must not have been sanctioned: if he had, Carter would have lodged a complaint. Simyar went on to add that “if anybody’s salary is [reduced], they will go and complain.” This statement makes clear that Simyar was referring not just to Carter, but to any reasonable person facing financial sanctions. This is consistent with the behavior to be expected of any tenured professor, regardless of whether he had a history of filing discrimination complaints. Someone who is financially sanctioned is quite likely to appeal that decision up the administrative hierarchy. While we accord all reasonable inferences to Carter at the summary judgment stage, the inference of animus that he suggests here is not a reasonable one. The remaining evidence Carter cites applies equally to the FMLA and Section 1981 claims. Carter claims that Simyar’s efforts to support Coupet over Carter in the chair appointment provide evidence of retaliatory motives in the acting chair appointment. Again, Carter asks us to treat the acting chair claim as a continuation of the chair claim. We decline to do so. Drawing an inference of retaliation in the acting chair claim would require a leap in logic that we are unwilling to take. Carter next claims that he and Hunt were similarly situated parties, and that Hunt was treated differently by being appointed acting chair. We discuss this claim in detail in the No. 13-3367 13 following section, as it overlaps with Carter’s arguments under the indirect method of proof. And finally, Carter claims that Simyar’s stated reasons for selecting Hunt were pretextual. When asked why he did not appoint Carter to the acting chair position, Simyar stated, “No reason. I had to appoint one person. I appointed Atha Hunt.” To show pretext, Carter must establish that Simyar’s “ostensible justification for its decision is unworthy of credence.” Tank, 758 F.3d at 807–08 (citing Gordon v. United Airlines, Inc., 246 F.3d 878, 888 (7th Cir. 2001)). He can do this by “providing evidence tending to prove that the employer’s proffered reasons are factually baseless, were not the actual motivation for the discharge in question, or were insufficient to motivate the [employment action].” Tank, 758 F.3d at 808 (quoting Gordon, 246 F.3d at 888–89). While Simyar’s stated reason was admittedly terse and lacking in detail, Carter presented no evidence, aside from vague references to the evidence discussed above, to show that Simyar’s stated reason was “unworthy of credence.” Looking at this proffered evidence in combination, we conclude that Carter has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to Simyar’s and CSU’s motives in not appointing Carter to the acting chair position. The lone piece of evidence that carries any weight supporting an inference of retaliatory motive is the temporal proximity between Carter’s prior lawsuits and the acting chair appointment. But we have repeatedly held that “temporal proximity between an employee’s protected activity and an adverse employment action is rarely sufficient to show that the former caused the latter.” Coleman, 667 F.3d at 14 No. 13-3367 860. Without any other corroborating evidence, Carter’s claim cannot survive summary judgment under the direct route.
As discussed, Carter also proceeds under the indirect method of proving retaliatory intent. Under this method, Carter must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Once he has done so, the defendants must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment action. The burden then shifts back to Carter to offer evidence that the defendants’ stated reason was pretextual. Vaughn v. Vilsack, 715 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2013). To meet his prima facie burden in a retaliation claim, Carter must establish that: “(1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) he met his employer’s legitimate expectations…; (3) he suffered a materially adverse action; and (4) he was treated less favorably than some similarly situated employee who did not engage in the statutorily protected activity.” Id. In the failure-to-promote context, we have described the standard with an added degree of particularity. In terms of his adverse employment action, Carter must show that he applied, was qualified, and was rejected for the position sought. Grayson, 317 F.3d at 748. And in order to satisfy the fourth prong, that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee, he must show that “the employer granted the promotion to someone outside of the protected group who was not better qualified than the plaintiff.” Id. Thus, when the failure-to-promote is allegedly retaliatory, the plaintiff must show the following to meet his prima No. 13-3367 15 facie burden: (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) he applied for and was qualified for the position sought; (3) he was rejected for that position; and (4) the employer granted the promotion to someone who did not engage in statutorily protected activity, and who was not better qualified than the plaintiff. 5 We conclude that Carter did not meet his prima facie burden under the indirect method. The district court concluded that Carter could not satisfy the second prong—that he applied for the position sought—because he failed to express interest in being considered for the position. We need not determine whether Carter’s case is defeated by the second prong, however, because we conclude that he failed to present evidence establishing that CSU and Simyar granted the promotion to someone who was not better qualified than Carter. Carter alleges the following facts as supporting the determination that Hunt was less qualified than Carter: Hunt has a JD, not a PhD; a JD typically would not satisfy the Department’s tenure requirements; and Hunt did not receive four faculty votes in the Chair appointment race, as Carter did. These facts do not carry the day. Even accepting all of them as true, Carter does not establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Hunt was less qualified than 5 The parties seem to assume, but do not explicitly state, that this is a “failure-to-promote” case. We think that is an accurate description, but regardless, how we classify the case is not dispositive, as Carter’s claim would also fail if evaluated under the more general “retaliation” standard. 16 No. 13-3367 Carter for the position of acting chair. First, Carter does not identify any criteria used by CSU for determining acting chair appointments. Without knowing what qualifications the department sought in an acting chair, it is almost impossible to determine which candidate was more or less qualified. Nor does Carter identify what significance, if any, CSU officials placed on degree credentials in the acting chair appointment. Carter relies on an inference that because a JD is not normally sufficient to qualify a professor for tenure, it must be viewed by CSU as an inferior degree credential for the purposes of acting chair. For several reasons, we cannot make that inference. Carter seems to concede that Hunt was in fact granted tenure—so the factors that induced CSU to grant Hunt “extraordinary” tenure may be the very factors that made him particularly qualified to serve as acting chair. Or perhaps the acting chair has frequent exposure to matters of legal significance, and a JD is a great asset. Without any information about the qualifications that CSU sought, Carter simply cannot establish that Hunt was not more qualified. Carter also suggests that having previously received four faculty votes in the chair appointment process constitutes a “qualification” for the purposes of appointment to acting chair. This contention is without merit. The faculty chair vote represented a recommendation on behalf of the faculty that was non-binding on both the college’s dean and the university president. Carter provides no evidence to support the conclusion that faculty preference could somehow be interpreted as a job qualification. Even if that recommendation could properly be classified as a qualification, there is no apt comparison to be made between Hunt and Carter. Hunt No. 13-3367 17 simply was not part of that race—only Carter and Coupet submitted their names for consideration. It is true that half of the faculty, when given the choice between Carter and a person who was not Hunt, chose Carter. No inferences can be drawn, however, about the faculty’s preference for Hunt, or Hunt’s qualifications, from the fact that he chose not to throw his hat in the ring. Finally, Carter did not provide any other information that would permit a finder of fact to compare him with Hunt. That includes information about how long Hunt had been employed by the university or in other teaching positions; how many and which courses Hunt taught; how Hunt was reviewed by students and superiors; his performance in any of his job responsibilities; or his level of administrative experience. We conclude by noting that several pieces of evidence in the record before the district court support the conclusion that, at least in terms of performance, Carter may well have been less qualified than Hunt. Tolia stated in his deposition that the administration had received a variety of student complaints about the quality of Carter’s teaching. Tolia testified that, per the department’s protocol, he had attempted to resolve at least one of those student complaints by facilitating a conference between Carter and the student. Carter refused to attend the meeting. In addition, record evidence suggests that Carter twice refused to teach one of his classes for an entire semester. Carter also conceded that he had been previously removed by the university president as chair of the department. In doing so, the president cited Carter’s “overall ineffective leadership evidenced by extreme divisiveness within the de18 No. 13-3367 partment and faculty perception of inequitable standards applied to department members.” Faced with these facts, and the lack of information presented by Carter, a reasonable jury simply could not have concluded that Hunt was no more qualified than Carter. C. Motion to Reconsider the Grant of Summary Judgment We need not address Carter’s appeal of the denial of his motion to reconsider. The entry of summary judgment against Carter was a final order, and it completely disposed of Carter’s claims. Because we affirm that grant of summary judgment, his appeal of the denial of his motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment is dismissed.