Smith v. Chi. Transit Auth.

• Decision Date: 23 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–2622.,14–2622.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
• Parties: Robert E. SMITH and Joseph A. Baldi, Trustee, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant–Appellee.

806 F.3d 900

Robert E. SMITH and Joseph A. Baldi, Trustee, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 14–2622.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Dec. 10, 2014.

Decided Nov. 23, 2015.

John William Moynihan, Jeffrey Corso, Cooney Corso & Moynihan, LLC, Downers Grove, IL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.

Rachel L. Kaplan, Judith A. Kelley, Chicago Transit Authority Law Department, Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee.

Opinion

SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Robert Smith alleges that the Chicago Transit Authority (“the CTA”) fired him because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The CTA says it fired Smith because he violated its policy against sexual harassment. The district court granted summary judgment for the CTA, concluding that Smith's case failed under the direct and indirect methods of proof. We affirm.

I. Background

Smith, who is black, began working at the CTA in 1986. In the fall of 2006, he held the position of Transportation Manager and was assigned to the Bus Services Management unit, which was responsible for the movement of buses and monitoring bus service in the field.

The CTA has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment, including “[u]nwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” when the “conduct has the ... effect of ... creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.” The CTA's EEO Unit is tasked with investigating sexual-harassment complaints brought to its attention. Operations managers who learn of sexual-harassment allegations are required to pass them on to the EEO Unit. Managers are instructed to collect written statements from the employees involved in the complaint and submit them to the EEO staff for investigation. An EEO staff member then investigates the complaint and prepares a report. Based on a review of the investigator's file and report, the general manager of the EEO Unit determines whether the accused employee violated the sexual-harassment policy. All disciplinary decisions, however, are made by department managers; the EEO Unit has no disciplinary authority.

On November 6, 2006, bus operator Marcella McCall reported that on October 28 Smith asked her to perform a striptease for his wife and to join him and his wife in a sexual relationship. He repeated the proposition the next day. At the time Smith was McCall's supervisor, so she reported these incidents to another manager who forwarded the complaint to the EEO Unit. Pamela Beavers was the general manager of the unit, and she had three staff members: Thelma Crigler, Alenda Young, and Salvador Ramirez. (Beavers, Crigler, and Young are black; Ramirez is Hispanic.) Young was assigned to investigate McCall's report.

Young began by interviewing McCall and Robert McCullough, a bus supervisor who was working with McCall on the dates in question. Young also interviewed Smith, and she quickly recognized him from a prior unwelcome encounter. According to Young, on this earlier occasion Smith approached her for no apparent work-related reason, told her she “looked lonely,” and asked her to lunch. This made her uncomfortable, but she completed the interview anyway and then handed the matter off to Ramirez, who took over as lead investigator.

During Young's interview with Smith, he told her that on October 28 he had allowed McCall to sit in his truck when she was cold, but he said there hadn't been any sexual talk between them on either of the dates in question. Smith told Young that he thought McCall made up the sexual-harassment story to cover for leaving work early on October 29.

Ramirez completed the investigation and prepared a report concluding that Smith had violated the CTA's sexual-harassment policy. The report included summaries of various employee interviews, including one with a second female employee who also accused Smith of inappropriate sexual remarks. Ramirez explained that his conclusion was

based on the following information: McCullough stated that he saw both Smith and McCall in the truck together for approximately 20 minutes; McCall made a contemporaneous complaint regarding Smith's unwelcome conduct; Smith's incongruous account of the incident with McCall is contradicted by his behavior subsequent to his observance of her as a manager with suspicion of her misconduct. Also, Smith's forward and aggressive approach of an identified EEO Officer [Young] gives example of his proclivity for inappropriate workplace behavior toward female coworkers.

Ramirez recommended that “corrective action” be taken by the appropriate operations unit. The report also noted that “Smith will be counseled by the EEO[ ] Unit on what actions would be in his best interest to prevent inappropriate actions, or claims of retaliation, in the future.” Beavers approved the report on December 18.

Responsibility for any disciplinary action fell to William Mooney, the vice president of bus operations at the CTA, who oversaw about 164 managers, including Smith. After receiving the report from the EEO Unit, Mooney asked Walter Thomas, the general manager of Bus Service Management, to investigate further. Thomas interviewed Smith and asked the CTA's lawyers for advice on whether the EEO Unit investigation had been properly completed. (He apparently didn't have direct access to many of the EEO Unit's materials or staff.) This additional investigation didn't turn up anything to refute the EEO Unit's findings, so Thomas and Mooney concluded that Smith had indeed violated the sexual-harassment policy. On January 24, 2007, Mooney fired Smith, citing (among other reasons) the violation of the CTA's sexual-harassment policy.

Smith filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that he was fired because of his race. The EEOC investigated and issued a Right to Sue letter on December 10, 2009. Smith then filed a pro se complaint against the CTA in federal court. Smith had filed for bankruptcy earlier in 2009, so Joseph A. Baldi, the bankruptcy trustee, intervened in the action.

Smith eventually obtained counsel, who twice amended the complaint. The latest version alleges that the CTA fired Smith because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.,and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and that the CTA defamed him by speaking about the circumstances of his discharge to the Chicago Tribune.

Following discovery, the CTA moved for summary judgment. The CTA argued that the defamation claim was time-barred. Smith didn't contest that argument, and he says nothing more about this claim here, so we don't need to address it further. Regarding the two discrimination claims, Smith argued that he had enough evidence to get to a jury. The district court disagreed, concluding that Smith's evidence was insufficient to create a triable issue under either the direct or indirect methods of proving unlawful discrimination. Accordingly, the court granted the CTA's motion. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

We review the district court's order granting summary reasonable inferences in Smith's favor. See Arizanovska v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.,682 F.3d 698, 702 (7th Cir.2012). The legal analysis for discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981is identical, so we merge our discussion of the two claims. See Johnson v. Gen. Bd. of Pension & Health Benefits of United Methodist Church,733 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir.2013).

At the summary-judgment stage, claims of employment discrimination are evaluated under the “direct” method of proof or the “indirect” method of proof announced in McDonnell Douglas v. Green,411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), depending on the kind of evidence the plaintiff presents in opposition to the motion. The “direct” method is a bit of a misnomer: it simply refers to anything other thanthe McDonnell Douglasindirect approach. Under the direct method of proof, the plaintiff can defeat summary judgment by presenting sufficient direct evidence of the employer's discriminatory intent or “a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence ... that point[s] directly to a discriminatory reason for the employer's action.” Davis v. Con–Way Transp. Cent. Express, Inc.,368 F.3d 776, 783 (7th Cir.2004)(internal quotation marks omitted). Examples of relevant circumstantial evidence include “suspicious timing, ambiguous oral or written statements, or behavior toward or comments directed at other employees in the protected group.” Good v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr.,673 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir.2012)(internal quotation marks omitted).

The indirect method is a formal way of analyzing a discrimination case when a certain kind of circumstantial evidence—evidence that similarly situated employees not in the plaintiff's protected class were treated better—would permit a jury to infer discriminatory intent.¹The plaintiff must first meet his burden of production on the familiar four-part test for establishing a prima facie case: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he performed his job to his employer's expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) one or more similarly situated individuals outside his protected class received better treatment.Antonetti v. Abbott Labs.,563 F.3d 587, 591 (7th Cir.2009). If the plaintiff does so, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. Id.The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to provide evidence establishing a genuine dispute about whether the employer's stated reason was a pretext for prohibited discrimination. “Pretext means more than a mistake on the part of the employer; pretext means a lie, specifically a phony reason for some action.” Wolf v. Buss (Am.) Inc.,77 F.3d 914, 919 (7th Cir.1996)(internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate if the plaintiff...