Opinion ID: 212834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Claim of Pregnancy Discrimination

Text: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because of that person's sex. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-555, added a definition to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) to make clear that discrimination based on a woman's pregnancy is, on its face, discrimination because of her sex. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 684, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983). As with other Title VII claims, a plaintiff may prove pregnancy discrimination either directly or indirectly. See Griffin v. Sisters of St. Francis, Inc., 489 F.3d 838, 844 (7th Cir. 2007). To avoid summary judgment under the direct approach, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to create a triable question of intentional discrimination in the employer's decision. Miller v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 203 F.3d 997, 1005 (7th Cir.2000); Geier v. Medtronic, Inc., 99 F.3d 238, 241 (7th Cir.1996). A plaintiff also may proceed under the indirect, burden-shifting method adapted from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Like the district court, we conclude that Silverman did not present sufficient evidence under either approach to defeat the Board's motion.
To succeed under the direct method, Silverman must offer either direct evidence that would prove the fact in questionthe discriminatory intentwithout reliance on inference or presumption, Venturelli v. ARC Community Services, Inc., 350 F.3d 592, 599 (7th Cir.2003), or a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker. See Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Department, 578 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2009), quoting Phelan v. Cook County, 463 F.3d 773, 779 (7th Cir.2006); Davis v. Con-Way Transportation Central Express, Inc., 368 F.3d 776, 783-84 (7th Cir. 2004). Silverman has no direct evidence of intent to discriminate against her on the basis of pregnancy, so she relies on the latter approach. A plaintiff using the convincing mosaic approach to prove a discrimination claim under the direct method may present any of three broad types of circumstantial evidence. The first type includes suspicious timing, ambiguous statements oral or written, behavior toward or comments directed at other employees in the protected group, and other bits and pieces from which an inference of discriminatory intent might be drawn. Troupe v. May Department Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734, 736 (7th Cir.1994). Silverman relies principally on this type of evidence, and it will be the focus of our attention. The second type is evidence showing that the employer systematically treated other, similarly situated, nonpregnant employees better. Venturelli, 350 F.3d at 601. Silverman offered no potentially probative evidence of this type. [2] Finally, the third type of circumstantial evidence is evidence that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action and that the employer's justification is pretextual. See id. Cf. Troupe, 20 F.3d at 736 (describing the third type of evidence as evidence that the plaintiff was passed over or replaced by another, and that the employer's justification was pretextual). This type of evidence is substantially the same as the evidence required to prove discrimination under the indirect method, so we address Silverman's attempt to show pretext in that context below. See Huff v. UARCO, Inc., 122 F.3d 374, 380 (7th Cir.1997). [3] As to her bits and pieces evidence, Silverman relies on a statement made by principal Karvelas, along with conflicting testimony regarding when Karvelas found out Silverman was pregnant, and suspicious timing of the nonrenewal of Silverman's contract. Even under the summary judgment standard, we are not persuaded. Silverman points first to her testimony about a comment made by Karvelas in the spring of 2005 when Silverman inquired about maternity leave after notifying the school of her pregnancy. Karvelas replied, I only took one week for maternity leave. But you, honey, should take as long as you want to. Contrary to Silverman's assertions, Karvelas's comment does not come close to implying that Karvelas in any way disapproved of Silverman's pregnancy or her request for maternity leave, and it is even farther from substantiating her claim that her contract was not renewed because of her pregnancy. Karvelas's comment is not analogous to any of the statements made by employers in the cases Silverman cites. In Darchak v. City of Chicago Board of Education, 580 F.3d 622, 627 (7th Cir.2009), a principal called the plaintiff-teacher a stupid Polack. The Darchak principal's explicit epithet was direct evidence of discrimination. In the absence of sarcasm, of which there is no evidence, Karvelas's statement does not even approach a disparagement of Silverman or her pregnancy. In Duncan v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc., 518 F.3d 486, 490 (7th Cir.2008), an employer allegedly commented that the older workers no longer could do many things, even though the plaintiff, age fifty-one, was performing the essential functions of his job. That employer's general statement unequivocally belittled older workers. Karvelas's statement, by contrast, encouraged Silverman to take as much time off as she needed after giving birth. Where an ambiguous comment is made with a tone of sarcasm or enmity, a court may attribute greater weight to an alleged discriminatory inference. See, e.g., Hasham v. California State Board of Equalization, 200 F.3d 1035, 1044, 1050 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding that a comment made with a demeaning tone raised questions regarding credibility). But where, as here, Silverman has not alleged any sarcastic, demeaning, or derisive tone, we take the comment at its face value. This one does not reflect any discriminatory animus. Silverman also maintains that a jury could infer discriminatory intent based on Karvelas's conflicting testimony about exactly when she learned that Silverman was pregnant. The Board admitted in the EEOC proceedings (and maintained before the district court) that Silverman informed Karvelas of her pregnancy in or around March 2005. In her deposition nearly four years after the incident, however, Karvelas testified that she had no idea the girl was pregnant at the time she chose not to renew her employment, on March 29, 2005. Yet Silverman herself could not recall the dates and context of her notification. She first testified that she notified Karvelas she was pregnant on March 16, 2005. Later, Silverman stated that she first told Karvelas on March 8. These factual issues are not material to Silverman's claim. A data printout from the Board's employment management system indicated that, regardless of which date is correct, even after Silverman told her of the pregnancy, Karvelas decided to renew Silverman's contract. The electronic records show that Karvelas marked Silverman's file for renewal on both March 17 and March 28. Only later, on March 29, did Karvelas choose not to renew Silverman's contract when prompted by the Board to eliminate one special education position. Finally, Silverman contends that it was suspicious for Karvelas to decide not to renew her contract two or three weeks after she had notified her of her pregnancy and that this timing supports an inference that the Board's motive was discriminatory. This argument suffers from two principal flaws. First, suspicious timing alone is rarely sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Cole v. Illinois, 562 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir.2009). As we emphasized in Cole, mere temporal proximity is not enough to establish a genuine issue of material fact, id., quoting Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841, 851 (7th Cir.2008), and here, plaintiff has nothing more than weak proximity at best. Second, as we have noted, Silverman's claim is further contradicted by the computer records from the Board's employment system showing beyond reasonable dispute that Karvelas chose to renew Silverman's employment after learning she was pregnant. Taken separately or taken together, Karvelas's comment, the conflicting dates regarding when Karvelas found out Silverman was pregnant, and the timing of her non-renewal do not reach the threshold necessary for Silverman to defeat the Board's motion.
Silverman argues that she also has sufficient evidence to show pregnancy discrimination using the indirect method, which requires her first to offer evidence of a prima facie case that: (1) she was pregnant and the Board knew she was pregnant; (2) she was performing her duties satisfactorily; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated non-pregnant employees were treated more favorably. Clay v. Holy Cross Hospital, 253 F.3d 1000, 1005 (7th Cir.2001). The Board agreed for purposes of summary judgment that Silverman could meet that burden. The burden then shifted to the Board to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing her. After the Board provided a reason, Silverman could survive summary judgment only by offering evidence that the Board's reason was a pretext, which permits an inference of unlawful discrimination. Id. Silverman makes two pretext arguments, neither of which is convincing.
The Board argues that Silverman was selected for non-renewal in 2005 because she was the least effective of the probationary special education teachers at the school. To support this assertion, the Board offers Karvelas's testimony and her contemporaneous written notes regarding Silverman's teaching. In February 2005, Karvelas stopped by the classrooms of each of the probationary teachers working with special education students to observe their teaching. Karvelas testified that during a visit to Silverman's classroom she noticed a student wearing headphones and listening to a Walkman during the lesson. Her observation notes indicated that Silverman was simply standing rather than engaging with the student while this occurred. Silverman disputes this description, stating in her affidavit that she never saw a student wearing headphones or using a Walkman during a lesson. Karvelas also testified that during her periodic walks through the halls of the school, she noticed that another of Silverman's classes, co-taught with another teacher, was always rowdy. Karvelas stated that, according to her notes, on one occasion she had to stop to reprimand the class because the students were very loud and exhibited uncontrollable behavior. Silverman denied that any of her classes engaged in uncontrollable behavior, though she admitted that Karvelas stopped to reprimand her class. The district court concluded, and we agree, that Silverman's disagreement with Karvelas's evaluation does not present a genuine issue of material fact about the reasons for the Board's decision not to renew her contract. Though the Board admits Silverman performed well enough to meet the expectations of her job, the situation changed when Karvelas was told she had to choose one of the probationary special education teachers for non-renewal. That situation makes this case different from Duncan v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana , the case on which Silverman relies. In Duncan, the employer argued both that the employee was performing up to its expectations, and also that he was unable to meet the physical demands of the job. We held that those contradictory positions could not withstand scrutiny and concluded the employer's stated reason could be deemed pretextual. 518 F.3d at 491. Here, by contrast, the Board has not advanced a contradictory rationale for its decision not to renew Silverman's employment. In light of the difficult financial situation, Karvelas was required to select one special education teacher for non-renewal. The Board's position that all the teachers, including Silverman, were meeting the Board's expectations, but that Silverman was the least effective among them, is not internally inconsistent. Silverman's argument that the Board's position evolved between the EEOC proceedings and the proceedings in the district court likewise does not get her very far. Silverman takes the position that the EEOC's reasonable cause determination must be afforded consideration because it makes discrepancies in the Board's argument more salient and her argument more credible. The EEOC's determination itself, stating only that the agency found reasonable cause of discrimination and retaliation, in no way shows any evolution in the Board's position or its arguments. Insofar as Silverman intends to argue that the Board's position changed between the proceedings before the EEOC and those before the district court and that such a change constitutes evidence of pretext, she presented evidence to that effect in the district court by offering the Board's EEOC position statements. Although in some cases one can reasonably infer pretext from an employer's shifting or inconsistent explanations for the challenged employment decision, Appelbaum v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 340 F.3d 573, 579 (7th Cir.2003), the district court did not find any change in the Board's position here to be inconsistent, and neither do we. Moreover, as the Board points out, both parties' arguments evolved over the course of their dispute, as frequently occurs in litigation. Silverman also contends that the parties' conflicting factual accounts show a genuine issue of material fact. She asserts that Karvelas inappropriately based her judgment on one or two incidents she observed during which she noted that Silverman was not engaged with the students or not in control of the classroom. According to Silverman, her classroom manner was appropriate. Based on this dispute, Silverman argues that the Board's motion should have been denied. We again disagree. Taking Silverman's account as truethat Karvelas's account is wrong and that her notes were not substantiated by the events at the timeSilverman has still failed to offer evidence that the reason given by the Board was dishonest. To defeat the Board's motion, she must point to evidence suggesting that the Board itself did not give an honest explanation of its reason. Silverman's argument is like many that arise in employment discrimination cases where the employee disagrees with an employer's negative assessment of the employee's performance. See, e.g., Ptasznik v. St. Joseph Hospital, 464 F.3d 691, 697-98 (7th Cir.2006) (accepting employer's non-discriminatory justification of inexcusable performance and concluding that a court should not interfere in employment decisions simply where [it] believe[s] an employer has made a poor choice). If such disagreements were enough to avoid summary judgment and go to trial on an indirect proof case, summary judgment would become extinct and employer's evaluations of employees would be supplanted by federal juries' evaluations. We have said in substance more times than we can count that when an employer articulates a plausible, legal reason for discharging the plaintiff, it is not our province to decide whether that reason was wise, fair, or even correct, ultimately, so long as it truly was the reason for the plaintiff's termination. Giannopoulos v. Brach & Brock Confections, Inc., 109 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 1997); accord, e.g., Stockwell v. City of Harvey, 597 F.3d 895, 902 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that subjective evaluations of job candidates are consistent with Title VII); Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 788 (7th Cir.2009) (recognizing that the role of the court is not to second-guess employers' business judgments); Ptasznik, 464 F.3d at 697 (We do not sit as a super-personnel department with authority to review an employer's business decision), quoting Ballance v. City of Springfield, 424 F.3d 614, 621 (7th Cir.2005). Nevertheless, an employer's negative evaluation of the plaintiff's performance is not always the last word. If the plaintiff can raise a genuine issue about the honesty, not merely the accuracy, of the employer's stated evaluation, the case may need to be tried. An employee may demonstrate that the employer's reasons are unworthy of credence through evidence showing (1) that the proffered reasons had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate his discharge, or (3) that they were insufficient to motivate discharge. Mechnig v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 864 F.2d 1359, 1365 (7th Cir.1988) (emphasis in original, quotation marks omitted). See also Cliff v. Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis, 42 F.3d 403, 412 (7th Cir.1994) (recognizing Mechnig framework in context of plaintiff-teacher's claim that defendant-Board's non-discriminatory basis for not renewing her contractnegative performance reviewswas pretextual). Silverman rests her case on the first type of evidence described in Mechnig, asserting that the Board's stated reason had no basis in fact. Such arguments require strong evidence that could leave a disinterested observer doubting the honesty of the stated reason. See, e.g., Hague v. Thompson Distribution Co., 436 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir.2006) (concluding that it is insufficient for a plaintiff to show that an employer's decision was mistaken or ill-considered where it is undisputed that an employer honestly believes a non-discriminatory rationale for termination); McCoy v. WGN Continental Broadcasting Co., 957 F.2d 368, 373 (7th Cir.1992) (noting that the issue of pretext in age discrimination context addresses whether the employee honestly believes in the reasons it offers for its employment decision). Silverman simply has not provided any evidence beyond her mere disagreement with Karvelas's evaluation to indicate that the Board did not in fact base its decision on Karvelas's recommendation and assessment of her performance as it has argued. We explained this requirement with respect to age discrimination in Futrell v. J.I. Case, 38 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir.1994): If the evidence does not amply support a plaintiff's claim that the defendant's explanation is unworthy of credence, judgment as a matter of law is entirely appropriate. The same conclusion follows in a Title VII analysis. Thus, even looking directly at Karvelas's evaluations and their factual bases, it is irrelevant to a summary judgment analysis whether Karvelas mischaracterized Silverman's classroom management skills. We simply do not weigh the prudence of employment decisions made by firms charged with employment discrimination. See id. An employer can fire an employee for any reason, fair or unfair, so long as the decision to terminate is not based on age or some other protected category. Kier v. Commercial Union Insurance Cos., 808 F.2d 1254, 1259 (7th Cir.1987). Most detrimental to Silverman's claim is the undisputed fact that Karvelas observed one of Silverman's classes in February 2005, well before she learned of the pregnancy, so that negative evaluation could not possibly have been affected by any supposed bias against pregnancy. Neither has Silverman provided any evidence to call into question Karvelas's written observations regarding other teachers, all of which were positive. It is not sufficient for Silverman to argue, as she has, that all the teachers were good but because the one teacher whose employment was not renewed was pregnant, her pregnancy must have been the deciding factor for her selection. We are left with no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer pretext and discriminatory animus. In the absence of any whiff of disapproval by the Board of her pregnancy, Silverman cannot avoid summary judgment with an unadorned claim that a jury might not believe the Board's explanation. Giannopoulos, 109 F.3d at 411.
Silverman also tries to support her pretext argument with evidence of the Board's actions after her contract was not renewed. On July 27, 2005, the Board's Office of Special Services notified principal Karvelas that Lincoln Park would be the site of a new autism unit and that a new autism teaching position would become available for the 2005-2006 school year. In a letter dated the very next day, Karvelas offered Silverman this new position, which she accepted on August 11. In spite of her rehire, Silverman maintains that the circumstances surrounding her rehire were evidence of pretext. Karvelas interviewed two other teachers for the autism position. Silverman claims that these interviews were attempts by Karvelas and the Board to avoid rehiring her. She argues that they support her pretext argument under the indirect method by indicating that Karvelas took a dim view of pregnant teachers, had no intention of offering Silverman the new position until told by the Law Department that she had to, and remained intent on getting rid of Silverman. This is speculation rather than a reasonable inference. With the start of the school year fast approaching, the Board needed to conduct interviews for either Silverman's maternity-leave substitute or a permanent teacher in case Silverman declined her offer. It was perfectly reasonable for the Board to hold interviews and to be unsure at that time whether it would be able to offer the interviewee a short-term or permanent position. Most important here is that the Board offered Silverman the position and Silverman accepted. The fact that Karvelas interviewed other teachers is not enough for a rational trier of fact to infer pretext and find for Silverman on her discrimination claim.