Opinion ID: 747869
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Washington perform his job satisfactorily?

Text: 21 Mr. Washington first argues that the district court erred in holding that he did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he failed to demonstrate that he had performed his job satisfactorily. Mr. Washington claims that he can meet his prima facie requirement regarding his performance through his own testimony. Williams v. Williams Electronics. Inc., 856 F.2d 920, 923 n. 6 (7th Cir.1988) 6 ; see also Weihaupt v. American Med. Ass'n, 874 F.2d 419, 427-28 (7th Cir.1989) (plaintiff's testimony that plaintiff possessed abilities to meet job requirements was sufficient to establish prima facie requirement that individual was performing to employer's legitimate expectations). Accordingly, he asserts that because he has controverted or offered explanations for each of the alleged deficiencies, he has established genuine issues of material fact with regard to his performance. 22 We review the specific instances cited by Chicago Osteopathic in support of their claims that he did not perform to its expectations. Several of the complaints about Mr. Washington came from Lisa Laurie, a manager at the Glenwood clinic, one of the clinics for which Washington had primary responsibility. Chicago Osteopathic first points to Johnson's deposition testimony that Laurie had called her on January 16, 1991, very, very upset about ongoing problems with Mr. Washington. Mr. Washington admits that this phone call occurred and further admitted that Laurie told Johnson that she had some ongoing issues with Mr. Washington and that she tried to talk to [sic] them over with him. Loose Pleadings, Vol. 2, Pl. Answer to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, p 32. However, Washington asserts that Johnson should have viewed Laurie's complaints with skepticism because she was aware that Washington and Laurie had had previous confrontations. 7 23 In addition, Chicago Osteopathic stated that on January 28, 1991, 8 Mr. Washington had scheduled an individual for an interview at Laurie's clinic at a time when she was not scheduled to be there. Mr. Washington, however, asserts that he was told by another manager at the clinic that Laurie or the assistant manager would be able to meet with the interviewee. 9 Further, Mr. Washington admits that on January 28, 1991, Laurie called Johnson to report a physician coverage problem at one of her clinics. Mr. Washington argues that he was not responsible for the staffing shortfall because a staff member had called in sick making it difficult to find a replacement. Again, on January 31, 1991, Kramer reported to Johnson that staffing had not been coordinated for the Glenwood clinic for February 2, 1991. Washington rebuts this claim by asserting that another Assistant Administrator was responsible for staffing the clinic on February 2, 1991. Appellants Br. at 20-22. Accordingly, Mr. Washington has rebutted the performance deficiencies and complaints as they relate to Laurie. 24 However, in addition to the complaints from Laurie, Chicago Osteopathic also states that on or about February 1, 1991, Johnson received a phone call from the answering service for two clinics advising her that Mr. Washington did not provide them with corrected staffing schedules. In addition, at around the same time, Frederic Schwartz, M.D., Johnson's supervisor, had informed her that he was receiving several telephone calls from doctors complaining that staff and physician coverage had not been arranged, and that plant and facility issues he had discussed with Mr. Washington had not been taken care of. 25 Mr. Washington denied that the February 1 phone calls from the answering services or that the phone calls between Schwartz and Johnson took place, and rebuts these assertions only by stating that he was performing to expectations. R.23, Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, pp 30, 31, and 42, Loose Pleadings, Vol. 2. 10 These calls indicate that Johnson continued to receive complaints about Washington's ability to provide correct and complete staffing schedules, a task which both parties agree was a priority for an Assistant Administrator. Johnson discussed her continuing concerns in a meeting with him on January 25, 1991, during which she stated that she believed the position was not working out. She documented his unsatisfactory performance in a February 6, 1991, memorandum to him and suggested they decide on a mutually agreeable termination. R.22, Exh. A, exh. 11. 26 In addition, Mr. Washington admits that he did not arrange that much to meet with Johnson's secretary, Sheila, even though Johnson requested in the 90-day evaluation that he meet with Sheila twice a week. R.22, Exh. A at 94. Further, Mr. Washington acknowledges that he failed to submit a written response to his performance evaluation as she requested in his initial review. Pl. Answer to Def. Statement of Material Fact, p 26. Accordingly, he has not rebutted each and every deficiency as asserted by Chicago Osteopathic. Thus the district court correctly concluded that Mr. Washington had not established a prima facie case that he was performing to Chicago Osteopathic's legitimate expectations. 27 2. Did Chicago Osteopathic treat similarly situated employees outside Mr. Washington's classification more favorably ? 28 Mr. Washington also argues that the district court erred in concluding that he had not proven that others similarly situated were treated more favorably than Mr. Washington. He first asserts that he was treated less favorably than the other two Assistant Administrators because he was fired and they were not. The district court rejected this argument because Mr. Washington did not put forth any evidence that the two other Assistant Administrators were not performing their jobs to expectations and thus were not similarly situated. We agree that Mr. Washington has not offered any evidence that a probationary Assistant Administrator outside his classification was treated more favorably than he was after complaints had been received about that person's performance. 29 Mr. Washington argues that one of the problems attributed to him was actually the fault of another Assistant Administrator; thus, he concludes, that individual was also performing below expectations and was treated more favorably because he was not terminated. Even if it is true that another Assistant Administrator was responsible for one of the problems attributed to Mr. Washington, he does not establish that the other Assistant Administrator was encountering the same type of, and same number of, complaints asserted against Mr. Washington by Chicago Osteopathic. In addition, Mr. Washington admits in his brief that the other Administrator's probationary period was not extended while his was, thus defeating his claim that the two were similarly situated. 30 Mr. Washington also asserts in a somewhat circular argument that the district court failed to view the evidence in a light most favorable to him and thus incorrectly concluded that he was performing deficiently. He argues that he was similarly situated because, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to him, he was not performing below expectations and thus was similarly situated to the other employees. While the court must view the facts in a light most favorable to Mr. Washington at this stage, the facts demonstrate, and Mr. Washington acknowledges, that Johnson was receiving complaints about his performance. Asserting that the complaints were not wellfounded does not establish that he was being treated differently than similarly situated employees. 31 Mr. Washington also argues that another Assistant Administrator who was fired, Janice Brannon, was given more time than Mr. Washington to find alternative employment, thus demonstrating that he was treated less favorably. However, Brannon and Mr. Washington were not similarly situated because Brannon was no longer a probationary employee when she was terminated. Further, she agreed to resign and had requested more time to find another job, while Mr. Washington did not. Thus, it appears that the district court did not err in concluding that Mr. Washington has not sufficiently demonstrated that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees.