Opinion ID: 2999232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judith Rice

Text: Mr. Healy first contends that the district court erred in finding that there was no evidence that Ms. Rice knew of his reports of illegal activity at Mayfair. The district court concluded that, although Ms. Rice may have met with Mr. Healy in January or February of 1999 and discussed at that 9 Mr. Healy does not challenge the district court’s finding that the ban on attending safety meetings was not discriminatory. See Appellant’s Br. at 11 (mentioning safety meetings only once, when discussing the facts of the case). The district court held that Mr. Healy’s claim that, in retaliation for his reports of corruption to his supervisors, he was told not to attend safety meetings was not supported by the evidence. See R.92 at 15 (noting in particular that Mr. Healy admitted in his deposition that he in fact did attend safety meetings in both 1998 and 1999). Nor does he challenge the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Rice, Ms. Rice’s successor as the Commissioner of Water, cannot be held liable for retaliation because he was not aware of Mr. Healy’s reports of corruption. See id . at 11 (holding that Mr. Healy does not allege that he ever spoke directly with Mr. Rice about his claims of corruption at Mayfair, and noting that there is no other evidence that Mr. Rice knew of Mr. Healy’s concerns). The district court’s summary judgment order as it relates to Mr. Rice’s liability is not discussed by Mr. Healy in his brief before this court. 10 Neither party addresses the issue of whether Mr. Healy’s statements about corruption are protected by the First Amendment. We therefore have no occasion to address this issue, including whether Mr. Healy’s statements in any way were required by his official duties. See Garcetti v. Ceballo s, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 2006 WL 1458026 (2006). No. 04-3155 15 time his complaints of being denied various promotions, “Healy does not claim, and [Ms.] Rice does not recall, that Healy complained of corruption at Mayfair.” R.92 at 11. By contrast, Mr. Healy claims in his brief that “he informed [Ms.] Rice of alleged theft at Mayfair during [the 1999] meeting, although the District Court erroneously concluded that Healy had not claimed he reported corruption at Mayfair to [Ms.] Rice.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. In his deposition, Mr. Healy testified that he told Ms. Rice about events of employee misconduct at Mayfair before 1993. See R.78, Ex.2 at 311-12 (“[T]hings weren’t being done. I was guaranteed that she was aware of the problem with Miller, and I just wanted to make sure. It just seemed like nothing was getting done. . . . I explained to her that I had different meetings, different people, and that I was told that, you know, my name is [expletive] and that I was blamed for different things.”). But he admits that he did not “complain to [Ms.] Rice about anything that had happened since June of 1993.” Id . at 312. In his affidavit, he states: “I told Ms. Rice that I had many meetings with different people about my complaints of theft and sabotage at Mayfair and that my name was [expletive] because I was blamed for different things.” Id ., Ex.1 at 12. The affidavit contains nothing more specific with respect to the time frame of these complaints, specific individuals contacted or events discussed with Ms. Rice. Even if Mr. Healy and Ms. Rice did meet and did discuss corruption at Mayfair or Mr. Healy’s fears of retaliation for his reports of wrongdoing, as Mr. Healy now claims, Mr. Healy cannot demonstrate that this conversation had an effect on subsequent promotion decisions. After the meeting, which Mr. Healy claims occurred in either late January or early February of 1999, he was denied only two promotions: one in May 2000; the other in July 2000. Ms. Rice, 16 No. 04-3155 however, resigned from her position as DOW Commissioner in late October 1999. Thus, between January 1999 and her resignation ten months later, she neither made nor ratified a single employment decision affecting Mr. Healy, including the denial of promotions in 2000. Mr. Healy responds that he “interviewed for a promotion in September or October of [1999].” Appellant’s Br. at 19; see also R.78, Ex.2 at 315 (Healy Dep.). There is simply no evidence to support this contention. According to the record, hiring for both of the 2000 promotions did not commence until months after Ms. Rice’s resignation. For the May 2000 ACOE promotion, Mr. Healy submitted his application and was deemed minimally qualified for the position in midApril 2000. Interviews were conducted on May 12, May 16 and May 17 in the year 2000. The interview panel’s recommendations were approved by Mr. Rice on June 7, 2000. Hiring for the July 2000 promotion also began in April 2000. A bid list of minimally qualified candidates was prepared on April 18, 2000. Interviews were conducted on June 19, 2000. Mr. Rice offered the top-ranking candidate a promotion on July 31, 2000. In sum, there is no evidence that hiring for either position began before Ms. Rice’s resignation, or that she, post-resignation, influenced her successor’s choice of candidates for promotion. Mr. Healy submits, however, that Ms. Rice was aware of his reports of corruption before their January or February 1999 meeting and influenced the promotion decisions prior to that date. According to Mr. Healy, [Ms.] Rice admitted to having knowledge of theft and corruption by other Water Department employees . . . . There is no evidence in the record to show that anyone else besides Healy made reports of theft and corruption. Therefore, the District Court should have drawn the reasonable inference that [Ms.] Rice knew Healy had made the complaints of corruption. No. 04-3155 17 Appellant’s Br. at 19. Mr. Healy’s bare allegations are insufficient to survive summary judgment. His argument is entirely speculative. Indeed, even if Ms. Rice generally was aware of problems at Mayfair, there is no proof that she knew specifically that Mr. Healy, as opposed to another individual, had complained to his supervisors of corruption at Mayfair. Cf. Luck ie v. Am eritech Co rp ., 389 F.3d 708, 715 (7th Cir. 2004) (“It is not sufficient that [the defendant] co uld or even sho uld have known about [the plaintiff’s] complaints; she must have had actual knowledge of the complaints for her decisions to be retaliatory.” (emphasis in original)); Miller v. Am erican Fam ily Mut. Ins. Co ., 203 F.3d 997, 1008 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n employer cannot retaliate when it is unaware of any complaints.”). Nor can an inference of knowledge or retaliation be drawn from the circumstances. Although Ms. Rice admits to general knowledge of theft and corruption at Mayfair, neither party identifies the date on which she acquired such knowledge; Mr. Healy does not even suggest, much less offer evidence to support the claim, that Ms. Rice knew of these issues prior to November 1998—the date of the last promotion decision before Ms. Rice resigned as Water Commissioner. Moreover, even if the record contained direct evidence establishing that Ms. Rice knew of Mr. Healy’s complaints of corruption and theft prior to November 1998, that evidence, standing alone, would not justify the denial of summary judgment. We have held under similar circumstances that, “as a matter of law, mere knowledge of the plaintiff’s protected activity prior to an adverse employment action does not establish a retaliatory motive.” 11 Sanchez v. Hend erso n, 188 F.3d 740, 747 (7th Cir. 1999). 11 Sanchez and other cases have recognized that, although “mere (continued...) 18 No. 04-3155 Here, there is no evidence that Ms. Rice played a role in the formation of the interview panels. Nor is there any evidence, and Mr. Healy does not contend, that these panels acted as Ms. Rice’s “cat’s paw,” Byrd v. Illino is Dep åt. o f Pub . Health, 423 F.3d 696, 708 (7th Cir. 2005), in their ranking of Mr. Healy far down the list of candidates. Mr. Healy simply has not substantiated factually his claim that his failure to be promoted is traceable to a “retaliatory motive” on the part of Ms. Rice. Sanchez, 188 F.3d at 747. This failure to supply evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment is dispositive.