David v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508

• Decision Date: 13 January 2017
• Docket Number: No. 15-2132,15-2132
• Parties: Celeste DAVID, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 508, doing business as City Colleges of Chicago, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

846 F.3d 216

Celeste DAVID, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 508, doing business as City Colleges of Chicago, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 15-2132

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued January 14, 2016

Decided January 13, 2017

Jemelle D. Cunningham, Attorney, Lad Law Group, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Valerie Harper, Attorney, City Colleges of Chicago, Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee.

Before Flaum and Ripple, Circuit Judges, and Peterson, District Judge.^*

Ripple, Circuit Judge.

Celeste David, an African–American woman over the age of forty, was an employee of the City Colleges of Chicago ("CCC") from 1980 until 2012. She announced in August 2011 that she planned to retire in June of the following year. After her announcement, she requested a change in title and an increase in salary because she was performing additional responsibilities related to the implementation of a software system; she was not awarded either. Following her retirement, her job duties were performed by Christopher Reyes, an Asian man under the age of forty, who was paid substantially more than Ms. David.

Ms. David subsequently brought this action alleging that she was denied a pay increase on the basis of her race, sex, and age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ; and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The district court granted summary judgment to CCC. Because we believe that the record, assessed in its entirety, does not contain sufficient evidence to permit a verdict for Ms. David on any of the counts, we now affirm the judgment of the district court.

IBACKGROUND

A.

Ms. David began working for CCC in October 1980. She held different positions throughout her career, but her final position at CCC was Manager of End–User Services in CCC's Office of Information Technology ("OIT"). In that position, Ms. David worked in computer support: she oversaw staff at the help desk and compiled internal reports of student data and external reports of staffing, building, and salary data required by the Illinois Community College Board and the Illinois Board of Higher Education. According to the job description for the Manager of End–User Services position, the qualifications include a "Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Information Science, Computer Information Systems, Data Processing, or an appropriate related field."¹ The job description also provides, however, that "[a] combination of educational and work experience may be taken into consideration at the discretion of the administration."² Ms. David's salary at the time of her retirement in 2012 was $75,594.67.

In 2001, "CCC implemented a new web application[,] PeopleSoft[,] for the collection and retention of [CCC's] educational, personnel, and financial data."³ PeopleSoft has several "pillars" directed toward different aspects of school administration: student administration, human resources, and financials.⁴ When CCC began implementing the PeopleSoft application, Ms. David "was assigned to handle the security function of the application," which "included: acting upon requests to give or remove a CCC employee or student's access to various levels of the PeopleSoft pillars and creating reports detailing which individuals had what levels of access to the system."⁵ From the time PeopleSoft was implemented in 2001 until October 11, 2011, CCC contracted with a company called Sync Solutions "to provide staff augmentation services to the OIT."⁶ During this time, a Sync Solutions IT consultant, Christopher Reyes, assisted Ms. David with her PeopleSoft security duties.

In 2011, due to the expiration of the contract with Sync Solutions, OIT made an effort to hire internally former Sync Solutions consultants to support PeopleSoft and other key applications. One of those individuals was Reyes.⁷ In October 2011, Reyes applied for, and received, the position of "Functional Applications Analyst," which required a Bachelor's Degree in a relevant field.⁸ In that position, he "was responsible for configuring the PeopleSoft Student Administration pillar" and reported directly to Valerie Davis, District Director of PeopleSoft Student Systems.⁹ Initially, Reyes continued to assist Ms. David with her PeopleSoft security duties, specifically generating required reports. Once he had taught Ms. David his methods for performing these tasks, she began performing these functions on her own, and Reyes focused exclusively on the PeopleSoft student administration application.

On August 1, 2011, prior to CCC's hiring Reyes, Ms. David had announced her intention to retire on June 30, 2012. Approximately one month later, Ms. David met with Craig Lynch, the Vice Chancellor for OIT, who had the authority to make promotion recommendations to the Chancellor.¹⁰ Ms. David asked Lynch for a new job title and more pay because she was performing additional tasks related to PeopleSoft security. Lynch told Ms. David to complete a Job Analysis Questionnaire ("JAQ"), a form that CCC employees can fill out to request more pay or a different title. Lynch also said that he would look into her job description and pay level. At some point during the meeting, Lynch inquired of Ms. David, "aren't you about to retire[?]"¹¹

Lynch reviewed Ms. David's job description and acknowledged that it did not include a description of Ms. David's PeopleSoft security duties. However, he concluded that, even if some change should be made in job description or job title, it was a lateral move that did not require additional compensation because the additional duties were "transactional in nature and did not involve analysis, critical thinking [or] problem solving."¹² Lynch did send an email to CCC's Executive Director of Compensation and Staffing, Jane Barnes,¹³ which stated: "Celeste David is working in a position that is not in alignment with her description.... Does it make sense to retitle her (not sure if she would need additional compensation)? Let me know. I need to update her on what the possibilities are."¹⁴

In her deposition, Barnes testified that she does not recall specifically responding to Lynch, but believes that she spoke to him. It is undisputed, however, that she would have been disinclined to seek a raise for Ms. David because giving her a raise over a certain amount would have resulted in a fine by the State University Retirement System ("SURS").¹⁵ Moreover, Barnes did not believe that Ms. David's position should be retitled or that she should receive a raise "because the creation and approval of a new position and salary would take several months, and [Ms. David] was retiring in June 2012."¹⁶

As Lynch had instructed, Ms. David filled out a JAQ. The questionnaire never was processed, and Ms. David remained at her same pay level, $75,594.67, and in her position of Manager of End–User Services, until her retirement.

In February 2012, Ms. David filed an internal Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint. On that form, Ms. David claims that she met with Lynch on three different occasions to discuss her pay and title. On each occasion, according to Ms. David, Lynch referenced her impending retirement. CCC's internal EEO office confirmed receipt of Ms. David's complaint form on February 3, 2012, but was unable to resolve the complaint before Ms. David retired in June.

When Ms. David retired at the end of June 2012, the PeopleSoft security functions reverted back to Reyes. He did not receive any increase in pay for taking on these additional duties. However, after Reyes's position was claimed by the union, he received a mandatory pay increase to $85,280 pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.

Six months after Ms. David retired, Reyes applied for the newly created,¹⁷ non-union position of Senior Systems Security Analyst.¹⁸ During his interview, he told the committee that he would like to retain his job duties as a Functional Applications Analyst as well.¹⁹ Reyes was hired into the position of Senior Systems Security Analyst on December 10, 2012, with an annual salary of $93,808.²⁰ "At that time, it was [CCC's] practice to grant a 10% pay increase to CCC employees who were internally promoted into positions designated in Salary Schedule N (non-Union)."²¹

In April 2013, CCC hired Rosane Rodriguez, a Hispanic female over forty, to the position of Technical Applications Developer with an annual salary of $85,000. Rodriguez has a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Information Services, which is a requirement of the position. She was hired into that position to develop an "interaction hub portal"²² and also to assist Reyes with the PeopleSoft security duties.

B.

Ms. David filed a four-count complaint alleging that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her age, gender, and race, in violation of the ADEA, Title VII, and the Equal Pay Act.²³ CCC moved for summary judgment on all counts. Ms. David claimed that Lynch's comments about her impending retirement, his failure to process her JAQ, and CCC's slow response to her EEO complaint demonstrated both age discrimination and pretext. She further maintained that Reyes and Rodriguez performed equivalent work but were compensated at a much higher level. The disparities, she maintained, evidenced gender, race, and age discrimination. Finally, she contended that Lynch's and Barnes's explanations for failing to accord her a new title or higher pay were unworthy of credence.

The district court ruled in favor of CCC.²⁴ It turned first to isolating the adverse employment actions of which she complained. It first noted that Ms. David had to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action on the basis of her gender, race, or age, and observed that the only materially adverse actions that Ms. David alleged were unequal pay and failure to reclassify her position. Although Ms. David had argued that Lynch's and...