Seventh Circuit case illustrates several useful defenses to discrimination claims
May 28, 2004In Little v. Ill. Dept. of Revenue, No. 02-2507 (7th Cir. 5/27/04), the Seven Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a Title VII termination case alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
Winning summary judgment is the name of the game in defending discrimination cases. See this post.
This appeal appears to cover no new ground, but is an opportunity for us to review some good basic aspects of discrimination defense and add a nice new Seventh Circuit citation to our brief writing toolkit if we practice in this circuit.
First, the court stated its standard for proof of discrimination, indicating that a prima facie case requires proof that “the employer treated at least one similarly situated individual outside of his protected class more favorably.”
Then, upon such proof, the employer has to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for termination, and in response the plaintiff must “put forth competent evidence that the proffered nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.”
On the first point, more favorable treatment of an employee outside the protected class, the court said:
A similarly-situated employee must have been disciplined, or not, by the same decisionmaker who imposed an adverse employment action on the plaintiff. . .This rendered immaterial the plaintiff’s evidence of disparate treatment, as it involved different decisionmakers.
Note a couple of points here.
First, this standard can be used to limit broad discovery requests regarding discipline or termination of other employees to those disciplined or terminated by the same decision maker as the plaintiff.
Second, particularly when taken together with other case law that is quite stringent about the similarity of the conduct upon which discipline or termination was based, this standard renders proof of discrimination extremely difficult.
This standard could be used to argue for pushing decision-making to a lower level, as lower-level supervisors will make less discipline and termination decisions than, for example, human resource personnel, and therefore the likelihood of there being truly similarly situated people will be less.
I would advise the opposite, however, as centralized decisionmaking by properly trained human resource personnel who appreciate the legal risks posed by inconsistent discipline is likely to be better decisionmaking, less likely to be contaminated by a variety of (lawful or unlawful) biases that individuals in direct contact with the employees being disciplined or discharged may have.
The court in Little also held summary judgment was appropriate because there was insufficient evidence of pretext. It stated the applicable law as follows:
Pretext exists where the ostensible reason for the employment decision is really a lie contrived to mask unlawful discrimination. . . . This circuit adheres to the honest-belief rule: even if the business decision was ill-considered or unreasonable, provided that the decisionmaker honestly believed the nondiscriminatory reason he gave for the action, pretext does not exist. . . .Here is another powerful legal principle for summary judgment.
We have stated that, “the more objectively reasonable a belief is, the more likely it will seem that the belief was honestly held.” . . . Conversely, it is also true that, the more objectively unreasonable a belief is, the more likely it will seem that the decisionmaker did not actually hold it.
Employees frequently try to prove pretext by contending they didn’t do whatever it was they were fired for. If a reasonable investigation preceded the termination (which obviously should be the case) then all such evidence, and the factual issues it entails, becomes immaterial. All that is material is what the decision maker reasonably believed after completing the investigation.
No genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment granted! Read the case
Related Posts
Fifth Circuit discusses evidence of pretext in age…
How Can A Plaintiff Establish Unlawful Retaliation, Yet Win No Damages?
Supreme Court holds direct evidence not necessary …
Uncorroborated plaintiff’s affidavit sufficient to create pretext fact question precluding summary judgment
Ninth Circuit finds statements insufficient to est…
`Sphere: Related Content`
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.