Opinion ID: 2708672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legitimate Reasons/Pretext

Text: Next, we turn to TOA’s argument that it had legitimate reasons for terminating Hnin’s employment and that Hnin has not presented evidence that these reasons were pretext for national origin discrimination. 1 “The focus of the pretext 1 Under the circumstances, our analysis of TOA’s legitimate job expectations merges with our pretext analysis. See Smiley v. Columbia Coll. Chi., 714 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir. 2013); Vaughn v. Vilsack, 715 F.3d 1001, 1007 (7th Cir. 2013). No. 13-3658 11 inquiry is whether the proffered reason is a lie.” Smiley v. Columbia Coll. Chi., 714 F.3d 998, 1002-03 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Majors, 714 F.3d at 539 (“An employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action is pretextual if it was a lie.”). “An inquiry into pretext requires that we evaluate the honesty of the employer’s explanation, rather than its validity or reasonableness.” Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2013). In other words, the “question is not whether the employer’s stated reason was inaccurate or unfair, but whether the employer honestly believed the reasons it has offered to explain the discharge.” Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835, 852 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 635 (7th Cir. 2011)). The parties do not dispute that Clayton was the final decision-maker under the circumstances. Evidence in the record supports that Clayton terminated Hnin’s employment based on Clayton’s review of all the information obtained during TOA’s investigation of Brock’s complaint, including Hnin’s sex-based harassment, intimidating conduct, instructions to his co-workers to work more slowly to obtain overtime, and defiance during his investigative interview. On appeal, Hnin first argues that there is a genuine dispute for trial whether his conduct toward Brock rose to a level of sexual harassment, thereby, raising the inference that this reason for his termination was dishonest. Hnin contends that he was merely teasing Brock and that his childish teasing was not sexual in nature. Specifically, Hnin asserts that “[t]here is a difference between harassing and objectionable misconduct,” and attempts to define what he considers sexual harassment based on case law in which we discuss Title VII hostile work environment claims. These cases do not in12 No. 13-3658 form our analysis because TOA’s harassment policy—not whether Hnin created a Title VII hostile work environment at TOA—is at issue. In fact, we have previously held that an employer can discharge an employee based on inappropriate conduct not amounting to actionable sexual harassment to avoid future liability. See Hall v. Bodine Elec. Co., 276 F.3d 345, 359 (7th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds, Hill, 724 F.3d at 967-68. In the same vein, Hnin’s argument that Brock never considered his conduct as sexual harassment is equally unavailing. Again, the focus of our pretext determination is TOA’s honest belief that Hnin violated its harassment policy. See Smiley, 714 F.3d at 1005. Hnin also argues that there was no evidence in the record that he intimidated or threatened his co-workers or that he told his co-workers to slow down to obtain more overtime. See Mullin v. Temco Mach., Inc., 732 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Where an employer proffers ‘more than one reason for the challenged action, a plaintiff must address all of the employer’s suggested reasons.’”) (citation omitted). Contrary to Hnin’s assertion, both Brock and Fajardo informed Clayton that Hnin’s conduct was intimidating and that Hnin instructed his co-workers to slow down to obtain more overtime work. Moreover, Hnin does not discuss Clayton’s fourth reason for terminating his employment, namely, Hnin’s defiant conduct during his investigative interview. During his interview, for example, Hnin did not listen to Clayton and insisted that Clayton interview witnesses in Hnin’s presence. Further, Hnin denied wrongdoing, was aggravated, and spoke with an elevated tone of voice. Hnin does not dispute that he acted in this manner, and this conduct establishes that he No. 13-3658 13 failed to abide another aspect of TOA’s harassment policy— he did not cooperate in his own investigation. Next, Hnin suggests that TOA’s violation of its own policy establishes pretext. More specifically, Hnin maintains that TOA violated its own policy because it skipped any disciplinary steps and terminated him immediately without warning. TOA’s standards of conduct policy, however, provides that “[s]ome infractions are serious enough to warrant the probation or dismissal of the associate without prior warning.” TOA’s handbook lists these infractions, including violations of its sexual harassment policies. In short, because TOA did not violate its own policy, this pretext argument fails. See Hague v. Thompson Distrib. Co., 436 F.3d 816, 828 (7th Cir. 2006). Hnin’s related argument that TOA did not enforce its harassment policy evenhandedly based on comparator evidence is equally unavailing because, as discussed in detail above, TOA terminated Smith’s employment without warning after conducting an investigation into his sex-based harassment and the other comparators’ misconduct was not similar enough to Hnin’s conduct to raise a genuine dispute of material fact for trial. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in Hnin’s favor, he has not pointed to any evidence suggesting that Clayton, as the final-decision maker, did not honestly believe his reasons for terminating Hnin’s employment at TOA. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment as to Hnin’s national origin discrimination claim. 14 No. 13-3658