Bass v. Joliet Public School District No. 86
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5663
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Corina Bass worked as a custodian for Joliet Public School District No. 86 from 2001 until her termination on February 2, 2011; she alleges sex discrimination under Title VII.
- A 2008–09 Pike Systems time study led the District to reassign second-floor restroom duties at Cunningham Elementary; Bass protested the change and had prior performance and suspension issues in 2009.
- Under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) Bass was allowed a one-time disability leave plus accrued sick leave; she previously used two long-term disability leaves and thus had exhausted available long leaves.
- After a series of back injuries and intermittent absences in late 2010–January 2011, Bass exhausted her leave, failed to return to unrestricted work, and was terminated for job abandonment; three male custodians were also fired for the same reason between 2008–2011.
- Bass filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination (timely as to the 2011 termination); the district court granted summary judgment to the District, and Bass appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of claims for 2008 reassignment and 2009 suspensions | These discrete actions are part of a continuing violation and therefore timely | The reassignment and suspensions are discrete acts outside the 300‑day EEOC window and time‑barred | Held: Time‑barred; discrete acts not salvageable as a cumulative violation |
| Adverse action and causation for termination | Bass contends termination was motivated by sex discrimination | District says termination was lawful under the CBA for exhausting leave and failing to return to work; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason supported by policy and prior warnings | Held: No evidence showing termination was motivated by sex; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason prevails |
| Sufficiency of evidence under the direct method | Bass argues discrimination can be inferred from circumstances | District points to lack of any direct or circumstantial evidence of sex‑based intent and comparators showing men were treated similarly | Held: Plaintiff presented no direct/circumstantial evidence; speculation insufficient |
| Sufficiency under McDonnell Douglas indirect method | Bass asserts she met prima facie case and similarly situated males were treated better | District contends Bass failed to show satisfactory performance or identified comparators; attendance violations show she did not meet expectations | Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case (performance and comparators); summary judgment for District |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807 (establishing EEOC filing period principles)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts vs. continuing violations rule)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial evidence)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (same‑sex discrimination actionable under Title VII)
- Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (discussion of cumulative violation concept)
- Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797 (delayed suit for cumulative violations doctrine)
- Dasgupta v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 121 F.3d 1138 (duration can convert offensive behavior into actionable alteration)
- Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chi., 385 F.3d 1104 (direct method requires evidence permitting inference of discriminatory causation)
- Blise v. Antaramian, 409 F.3d 861 (standard for direct‑method proof)
- Lucas v. Chi. Transit Auth., 367 F.3d 714 (elements of prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas)
- Contreras v. Suncast Corp., 237 F.3d 756 (attendance violations undermine claim of satisfactory performance)
- Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142 (perfunctory undeveloped arguments are waived)