Anthony Hill v. Daniel M. Tangherlini
724 F.3d 965
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Anthony Hill, an African American GSA employee hired in 2008 under a Federal Career Intern Program, filed an EEOC pay-discrimination complaint earlier and received a settlement increasing his pay.
- During his one-year probationary period Hill had three workplace incidents that coworkers reported: (1) a confrontation with his team leader about training selection, (2) a dispute over obtaining a color copy, and (3) a quarrel with a white female intern involving alleged stomping/slamming doors and shouting.
- Hill says he acted calmly and provided exculpatory accounts and coworker affidavits supporting his professionalism; he viewed a supervisor’s remark about his size as a racialized comment.
- GSA terminated Hill at the end of his probation, citing the three coworker complaints and conduct not meeting workplace expectations.
- Hill sued under Title VII for race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for GSA, finding Hill failed to make a prima facie case and failed to show pretext.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it corrected the district court’s erroneous characterization of Hill’s testimony as inadmissibly “self‑serving,” but held Hill nonetheless failed to prove pretext or link his firing to protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill established a prima facie discrimination case based on failure to meet legitimate expectations | Hill: he acted professionally; employer’s stated reasons (coworker complaints) are pretext for race/gender bias | GSA: terminated for legitimate conduct reasons—three independent coworker complaints showing pattern of misconduct | Court: Hill failed to show pretext; prima facie case not established because employer’s reasons were honestly relied upon |
| Whether the district court could discount Hill’s testimony as “self‑serving” at summary judgment | Hill: his deposition and affidavits are admissible evidence and create factual disputes | GSA: district court permissibly discredited Hill’s account | Held: District court erred to dismiss testimony as inadmissibly “self‑serving”; such evidence must be considered but error was harmless on ultimate issue of pretext |
| Whether timing of termination supports a retaliation claim (post‑EEOC settlement) | Hill: termination eight months after EEOC settlement is suspicious and retaliatory | GSA: timing is consistent with probationary evaluation; employer honestly relied on conduct issues | Held: Timing alone insufficient; Hill failed to link firing to protected activity or show employer’s explanation dishonest |
| Whether a similarly situated white female intern was treated more favorably (comparator) | Hill: intern’s conduct was similar but she received lesser discipline | GSA: intern had only one complaint; Hill had three distinct complaints—more serious pattern | Held: Court agrees complaints distinguish the employees; comparator not persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) (on admissibility and characterization of party testimony)
- Berry v. Chicago Transit Auth., 618 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2010) (self‑serving evidence must be considered at summary judgment)
- Buie v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 366 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004) (evidence presentation at summary judgment)
- Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (pretext inquiry focuses on employer honesty, not reasonableness)
- O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (pretext standard in employment cases)
- Hague v. Thompson Distrib. Co., 436 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2006) (employment expectations and discharge analysis)
- Burks v. Wis. Dep’t of Transp., 464 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2006) (proof required for retaliation/causation)
- Pantoja v. Am. NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp., 495 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2007) (comparator analysis and differing employer responses)