Boss v. Castro, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5008

Larry Boss, an African-American HUD engineer (2002–2011), filed Title VII claims for race discrimination, retaliation (for prior EEOC complaints), and hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for HUD and Boss appealed.
Boss had generally positive evaluations ("highly successful" through 2006); he filed an EEOC complaint in 2007 against supervisor Eleny Ladias and later alleged retaliation and further race discrimination.
Employer placed Boss on a performance improvement plan (PIP) in mid-2008 for delayed grant closeouts; Boss completed the work and PIP ended in November 2008. A co-worker (Alease Thomas) assisted with substantive portions of his closeouts.
Other adverse workplace events Boss complained of: being marked AWOL, criticized for missing a teleconference, reassigned a telework day, and receiving a downgraded midyear evaluation after transfer to supervisor Elmore Richardson. HUD produced evidence Boss missed leave without authorization and failed to meet expectations.
The administrative law judge in a related EEOC proceeding did not find race discrimination but found discrimination for filing the EEOC complaint; the district and this court declined to give preclusive effect to that administrative judge’s legal conclusions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boss proved race discrimination via an adverse employment action	Boss: PIP, AWOL markings, telework enforcement, and downgraded review were adverse and motivated by race	HUD: incidents are not materially adverse changes in employment status and were justified by performance/attendance issues	Held: No — Boss failed to show materially adverse action; discrimination claim fails
Whether Boss proved retaliation (for EEOC activity)	Boss: same incidents were materially adverse and causally linked to protected EEOC activity	HUD: actions were routine supervisory measures tied to legitimate performance/attendance reasons; no causal link or comparable employees shown	Held: No — incidents would not dissuade a reasonable worker; retaliation claim fails
Whether conduct created a hostile work environment based on race or retaliation	Boss: cumulative incidents created an abusive, retaliatory workplace	HUD: no severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive conduct; no evidence of racial remarks or retaliatory animus	Held: No — record lacks severe/pervasive or race/retaliation-based harassment; hostile-work claim fails
Whether administrative ALJ findings are preclusive here	Boss: relies on ALJ conclusions to support claims	HUD: ALJ legal conclusions have no preclusive effect in this federal Title VII suit	Held: No preclusive effect — ALJ legal conclusions not binding; court may consider admissible witness testimony only

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation standard: materially adverse acts that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment objective/subjective standard)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (Seventh Circuit discussion of direct/indirect proof frameworks)
Simpson v. Beaver Dam Cmty. Hosps., Inc., 780 F.3d 784 (application of direct/indirect methods in discrimination claims)
Nichols v. Mich. City Plant Planning Dept., 755 F.3d 594 (hostile-work-environment elements and summary judgment standards)
Langenbach v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 761 F.3d 792 (PIP not materially adverse for discrimination claim)
Silverman v. Bd. of Ed., 637 F.3d 729 (employer’s plausible nondiscriminatory reason need not be wise, only genuine)