Opinion ID: 753763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discrimination based on Race, National Origin, and Gender

Text: 39 To make a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he performed the job satisfactorily; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated employees received more favorable treatment. Hughes v. Brown, 20 F.3d 745, 746 (7th Cir.1994). 40 In Counts I through III, plaintiff alleges that assistant principal Tumas, a white female, made arbitrary and discriminatory observation reports of plaintiff's teaching performance. Plaintiff further claims that, contrary to the collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) between defendants and the Chicago Teachers Union (Union) and other school procedures, principal Collins, a black male, copied Tumas' observation reports and concluded in 1991 and 1993 that plaintiff should receive a satisfactory instead of an excellent teacher rating. Plaintiff avers that similarly situated white female, non-Sudanese, non-disabled teachers were treated more favorably than he concerning class observations and teacher ratings. 41 Additionally, plaintiff alleges that the aforementioned observation reports and teacher ratings were part of a pattern of harassment that he suffered from 1991 to 1993. Plaintiff claims to have suffered other acts of harassment, such as: (1) being wrongly accused of leaving his posts unattended; and (2) having a disproportionate amount of problem students assigned to his class. 42 Finally, in Counts I through III, plaintiff alleges that defendants discriminated against him by denying him a summer position in 1991 because similarly situated white female, non-Sudanese, non-disabled teachers were chosen for the position. 2 43 Defendants admit that plaintiff is in a protected class, but deny that he has met the second, third, and fourth prongs of his prima facie case. Defendants contend that the observation reports are subjective evaluations by the observer, and that teacher ratings are made by the principal based on various criteria. As defendants explain, plaintiff fails to offer any criteria to determine which teachers are similarly situated to him. In fact, the only evidence plaintiff submits to support the fourth prong of his prima facie case is his own statement that similarly situated white female, non-Sudanese, non-disabled teachers were treated more favorably than he. 44 In contrast, defendants compare the records and files of plaintiff to those of other teachers to substantiate the negative references in plaintiff's observation reports and his satisfactory ratings. Defendants offer the records of two black male teachers, a deaf white male teacher, and white female teacher, and a deaf white female teacher, all of whom received either excellent or superior ratings. Defendants allege that all of these teachers had fewer negative notations concerning classroom decorum, productivity, and punctuality than did plaintiff. 45 Defendants further submit, though plaintiff denies, that plaintiff was notified in writing on several occasions that he was required to be at his post. Defendants also explain that many of the alleged problem students assigned to plaintiff were also taught by other teachers who did not encounter the same problems with them as did plaintiff. 46 In addition, defendants contend that plaintiff was not hired for a summer position in 1991 because of his unacceptable behavior and inadequate job performance. Defendants explain that 25 teachers applied for 12 summer positions and that the decisions were made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Five white teachers were selected, while five other white teachers were not selected. Eleven women were selected, while eight women were not selected. The record indicates that seven African-American teachers and three hearing impaired teachers were also selected. 47 With respect to plaintiff's teacher ratings, the court agrees with defendants that, even if plaintiff was the only teacher to receive a satisfactory rating in 1991 and 1993, that alone would not establish plaintiff's prima facie case. Plaintiff has not articulated, nor has the court found, any reason why the court should treat any teacher who received an excellent or superior rating as similarly situated to plaintiff in terms of his or her overall teaching performance. Defendants' use of subjective factors (e.g., interpersonal skills) in evaluating and rating a teaching does not, standing alone, demonstrate bad faith. Weihaupt v. American Medical Association, 874 F.2d 419, 429 (7th Cir.1989). The alleged claims of harassment are also insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Therefore, on plaintiff's harassment claims in Counts I through III, including those involving the observation reports and teacher ratings, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. 48 Moreover, even assuming plaintiff has established a prima facie case on his claims of harassment, defendants have met their burden of production by articulating a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for observing, rating, and notifying plaintiff of failing to be at his post as they did: plaintiff performed his teaching duties inadequately. Therefore, the only way plaintiff could withstand defendant's motion for summary judgment would be to demonstrate pretext by either directly persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 257, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). This plaintiff has failed to do. 49 The question is not whether the [employer's performance] ratings were right, but whether the employer's description of its reasons was honest. Gustovich v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 972 F.2d 845, 848 (7th Cir.1992). Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Tumas' observation reports, Collins' ratings, and the other alleged acts of harassment were based on a discriminatory animus. Defendants admit that not all of the teachers at Whitney Young received evaluation ratings and observations reports that were placed in their personnel files, but deny that this indicates discriminatory animus. Rather, as defendants point out, some white female non-Sudanese non-disabled teachers received evaluations in the years that plaintiff received them, while others did not. Such inconsistency in defendants' evaluation practice may be contrary to the school's policies and procedures but does not establish pretext based on race, gender, or national origin. Similarly, the fact that Collins did not issue a E-1 form to plaintiff before lowering plaintiff's rating from excellent to satisfactory, without more, does not state a claim under Title VII. 50 Finally, with respect to defendants' failure to hire plaintiff in the summer of 1991, Counts I through III also fail to establish a prima facie case. Other black teachers, white teachers, both male and female, disabled and non-disabled, were hired in the summer of 1991. The fact that no other Sudanese teacher may have been hired for a summer position in 1991 cannot establish plaintiff's prima facie case; the record fails to show even one other teacher at Whitney Young who is Sudanese. 51 Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate pretext in defendants' decision not to hire him in the summer of 1991. The Rules of the Board of Education (Board) of the City of Chicago mandate that the Board and the principals are responsible for deciding who is best suited to teach its children. As Judge Posner recently reiterated, [c]ourts refuse to sit in judgment as super-personnel departments over corporate decisions. Brill v. Lante Corp., (7th Cir.1997). Consistent with Title VII, an employer may choose its employees according to its own criteria, so long as such criteria does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or gender. Plaintiff has failed to create an issue of fact on whether defendants have been honest in their reasons not to hire plaintiff for the summer of 1991 so that a factfinder could find pretext for discrimination based race, gender, national origin or disability. That defendants did not hire someone with the exact same combination of race, national origin, gender, and disability is insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Defendants' motion on Counts I through III is granted.