Butts v. Aurora Health Care, Inc.

• Citation: 387 F.3d 921
• Decision Date: 05 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-4061.,03-4061.
• Parties: Celestine O. BUTTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

387 F.3d 921

Celestine O. BUTTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-4061.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued September 15, 2004.

Decided November 5, 2004.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Aaron E. Goodstein, United States Magistrate Judge.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Larraine McNamara-McGraw (argued), Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mary P. Ninneman (argued), Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EVANS, WILLIAMS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Celestine Butts, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Aurora Health Care, Inc., alleging that it failed to promote her because of her race. The district court (Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein sitting by consent) entered summary judgment in favor of Aurora, concluding that Butts failed to present evidence that the reason Aurora gave for not promoting her was pretext for covering up racial discrimination.

Both parties adopted Judge Goodstein's factual recitation, which means the facts are undisputed, and we proceed on that assumption. Here, then, are the facts. Aurora hired Butts as a lab technician in August 1997. Two years later, the company listed six openings for a data analyst position. Data analysts perform several functions, including creating and managing files, monitoring data transfers, distributing reports, and installing and managing software and hardware. The positions required an associate degree in a related field or equivalent technical training, and 2 years of related experience in data operations or information system management. Butts and 16 others applied. Interviews for the positions were conducted by Aurora's lab director, Sandra Butschli, and its data center supervisor, Jacque Tuszkiewicz. Butschli and Tuszkiewicz eventually narrowed the field to six candidates, all of whom were white. Both supervisors felt that Butts, who had less technical experience, was not as qualified as six other applicants who made the cut.

Butts believed otherwise. After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, without the help of a lawyer, Butts filed suit, alleging that Aurora's failure to promote her was racially motivated in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Her original complaint alleged three claims of discrimination, but she voluntarily dismissed two of them during a Rule 16 conference, retaining only a claim that she was denied a promotion to a data support center analyst position in October of 1999. The Rule 16 conference was conducted in April of 2002, some 7 months after the case was filed.

Several months later, after the close of discovery, Judge Goodstein granted Butts' motion to "appoint" counsel.¹ He also granted Butts' request to reopen discovery but denied her motion to reinstate her previously withdrawn claims. Trying another tack, Butts moved for leave to amend her complaint to add claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The judge, however, denied the motion, concluding that the purported § 1981 claims simply recast the claims that were previously withdrawn. He noted that "[i]t is too late in the case to return to square one." Eventually, the judge granted Aurora's motion for summary judgment. Butts appeals both the entry of summary judgment and the denial of her request for leave to amend her complaint.

We review the judge's ruling on a motion for summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Butts. E.g., Mateu-Anderegg v. School Dist., 304 F.3d 618, 623 (7th Cir.2002). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The mere existence of an alleged factual dispute will not defeat a summary judgment motion; instead, the nonmovant must present definite, competent evidence in rebuttal. E.g., Salvadori v. Franklin Sch. Dist., 293 F.3d 989, 996 (7th Cir.2002).

It is well-established that a plaintiff in a Title VII case may proceed under a direct or indirect method of proof. Mateu-Anderegg, 304 F.3d at 623. Because Butts offered no direct evidence of discrimination, she proceeded under the indirect method set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). In order to survive summary judgment under McDonnell Douglas, Butts was required to produce evidence that she was: (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for the position sought; (3) rejected for the position; and (4) treated less favorably than a similarly situated candidate outside her protected class. E.g., Volovsek v. Wis. Dep't of Agric., Trade & Consumer Prot., 344 F.3d 680, 692 (7th Cir.2003). If a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. Salvadori, 293 F.3d at 996. If the employer does so, it rebuts the presumption of discrimination, and the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the proffered reason was pretextual. Id. Despite this burden-shifting approach, the ultimate burden of proof to establish discrimination remains at all times with the plaintiff. Id.

Here, the judge's entry of summary judgment was proper. In support of its motion, Aurora produced evidence that it failed to promote Butts because she had less experience and familiarity with its computer systems than the candidates who were promoted. Because this was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, it was incumbent on Butts to submit evidence that it was contrived; a mask for discrimination. But Butts submitted nothing, which was fatal to her suit and this appeal. Indeed, the judge could have entered summary judgment on the ground that Butts failed to establish the fourth element of a prima facie case, i.e., that similarly situated white candidates were treated more favorably. It was undisputed that all of the candidates had more relevant experience than...