Opinion ID: 2995459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discrimination and Hostile

Text: Environment
The principal claim Patton and Branch advance asserts that they were demoted from their positions because of their race or gender, in violation of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981 and Title VII. Under sec. 1981, [a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right . . . to the full and equal benefit of all laws . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981(a). Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-2(a)(1). Discrimination claims under both Title VII and sec. 1981 are analyzed in the same manner. Eiland v. Trinity Hosp., 150 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1998). Because the plaintiffs do not have any direct evidence of discrimination, they have used the familiar burden-shifting method established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). To establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiffs must prove, among other things, that similarly situated male or Caucasian employees were treated more favorably than they were treated. Id. at 802; see also Bratton v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 168, 176 (7th Cir. 1996). We agree with the district court that Patton and Branch have not met this burden and thus that their case fails at the prima facie stage. The plaintiffs point to two males whom they believe were treated more favorably than they were treated. The first is an African-American man who was charged in 1995 with sexual harassment, but was not demoted. But there is no reason to equate sexual harassment allegations (whether proven or not) with allegations about mismanagement of the transportation system of the entire school district.Furthermore, the individual in question was not even under the supervision of the same decision-maker. See Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281, 287 (7th Cir. 1992). The second proposed comparison is with a Caucasian man who served in management in the Department during the bus crisis, but who was not disciplined. Plaintiffs have offered no evidence about what responsibility this man had for the bus crisis or whether others had found his performance wanting. The fact that IPS did not demote either one of these people thus tells us nothing at all about disparate treatment of the plaintiffs on the basis of race or gender. Patton and Branch also argue that IPS had a policy of returning an employee to her previous position when a demotion was imposed. Thus, they argue, they suffered discrimination when they were demoted several steps down. Under the alleged policy, Patton would have been demoted from Acting Director to Operations Manager, and Branch from Acting Operations Manager to Base Supervisor;instead, Patton received the lower job of Base Supervisor, and Branch was made a Route Manager. Once again, they claim that the reason for the deviation in policy was their race and gender, but once again, they have failed to point to any other IPS employee, male or Caucasian, who received the allegedly normal treatment upon a demotion. The plaintiffs never identified a Caucasian employee or a male employee who was in a supervisory position similar to that which either of them held, with similar responsibility for the bus crisis, who was not demoted to the same degree or discharged. Patton was the Acting Director of Transportation--the head of the Department. It is only logical that she and Branch, the person in the next highest position, would be forced to take the fall. The plaintiffs argue quite passionately in their briefs that they were scapegoats in the fiasco and that Gilbert even admitted that he was going to blame them for the problems. But why not? They ran the Department, and it is hardly out of line for a higher level manager to hold subordinates to the satisfactory performance of a task. Without some evidence that the obvious explanation is not the true one, plaintiffs are left with nothing. It does not violate sec. 1981 or Title VII for Gilbert to make them scapegoats (or less pejoratively, hold them responsible), unless they were singled out because of their race or gender. As a side note, even if the plaintiffs had established their prima facie case, IPS has shown that its restructuring decision was justified by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-03. The Mayflower consultants recommended that Patton and Branch be demoted because they were ill-equipped to deal with the crisis. Patton and Branch have not offered any evidence that Mayflower was trumping up a story as a pretext for race or gender discrimination. The broader picture also is devoid of evidence of pretext. During the reorganization of the Department, eight individuals sufferedadverse employment actions and seven were promoted. Of the eight who suffered adverse employment actions, three were Caucasian males, two were African-American males, and three were African-American females. Of the seven who were promoted, one was a Caucasian male, two were African-American males, one was a Caucasian female, and three were African-American females. This evidence also tends to refute any allegations that Gilbert or the Board were using race or gender in making personnel decisions.
A plaintiff may also establish a Title VII violation by proving that discrimination based on race or gender has created a hostile or abusive work environment. See Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986). Patton alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment by her immediate supervisor, Coleman, and by Gilbert. She claims that Coleman treated her in a rude, abrupt, and arrogant manner, ignored her work-related suggestions and failed to keep her informed about changes at work. Finally, she alleges that Gilbert subjected her to stern and severe criticism after she took three days of sick leave in September 1993, in the midst of the bus crisis. Although it is possible that Patton was unhappy at work and that Coleman and Gilbert had something to do with her unhappiness, she has not stated a Title VII claim. First, a reasonable jury could not have determined that Patton’s treatment was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment in a significant way. Id. Many employees have to put up with some amount of rude, arrogant, or boorish behavior at work; the alleged actions of Coleman and Gilbert fall far short of creating an actionable hostile work environment. Second, Patton has presented no evidence to show that Coleman and Gilbert’s treatment of her was based on her race or gender--she argues instead that the abusive conduct was purely personal. This is fatal to her claim. See Johnson v. Hondo, Inc., 125 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 1997) (Under Title VII, a hostile work environment exists only when the victim was singled out because of his or her gender [or race].). Title VII does not guarantee a utopian workplace, or even a pleasant one. Vore v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 32 F.3d 1161, 1162 (7th Cir. 1994). As long as the hostility was not based on a protected characteristic, Title VII is not implicated. See id.