David v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508
846 F.3d 216
7th Cir.2017Background
- Celeste David, an African-American woman over 40, worked at City Colleges of Chicago (CCC) from 1980 to 2012 as Manager of End-User Services; she announced retirement effective June 30, 2012.
- From 2001 David performed PeopleSoft security tasks; Christopher Reyes (younger, Asian man) assisted as a contractor and was later hired by CCC in roles that absorbed PeopleSoft duties.
- After David requested a retitle and raise (completed a JAQ at the request of Vice Chancellor Craig Lynch), CCC never processed the JAQ; Lynch and compensation official Jane Barnes concluded retitling/raise was unnecessary and cited practical concerns (timing, a SURS penalty).
- David retired without a raise; Reyes later received higher pay through a union adjustment and was ultimately promoted to Senior Systems Security Analyst with substantially higher salary; Rosane Rodriguez (Hispanic woman over 40) was later hired into a technical role with higher pay.
- David sued under the ADEA, Title VII, and the Equal Pay Act alleging age, race, and sex discrimination based on pay and failure to reclassify; the district court granted summary judgment for CCC; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether David established a prima facie disparate-pay/disparate-treatment claim under Title VII/ADEA | David: Reyes and Rodriguez performed equivalent or overlapping PeopleSoft/security duties and were paid more; Lynch’s references to her retirement and failure to process JAQ/EEO show discrimination/pretext | CCC: Reyes and Rodriguez had materially different jobs, qualifications (college degree, technical systems duties), and pay differences trace to legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (job qualifications, union pay rules, timing) | Court: David failed to show similarly situated comparators or any evidence permitting a reasonable jury to find race, sex, or age caused lower pay; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Lynch’s comments about David’s impending retirement show age discrimination | David: Mention of retirement indicates age-based motive and pretext | CCC: Retirement reference reflected announced retirement status, not age; eligibility and retirement are distinct from age | Held: Remarks insufficient; no evidence linking decision to age rather than retirement status |
| Whether failure to process the JAQ and delay in EEO investigation are adverse employment actions | David: Non-processing and delay were materially adverse and deterred pursuit of rights | CCC: Those were internal procedural failures and not independently materially adverse; the real adverse action was denial of reclassification/pay | Held: Failures were not materially adverse on their own; they were vehicles relating to the allegedly adverse decisions |
| Whether David stated a prima facie Equal Pay Act claim (male paid more for equal work) | David: Reyes performed David’s job duties after her retirement yet was paid substantially more | CCC: Reyes’s position included substantial additional technical responsibilities and qualifications; duties were not substantially equal | Held: Jobs not equal in skill/effort/responsibility; David failed to make a prima facie EPA case |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (direct/indirect evidence distinction collapsed; focus on whether evidence permits inference of discriminatory cause)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (courts determine whether employer is dissembling to cover discriminatory purpose)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (distinguishing age from years‑of‑service motives)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (broader materiality standard for retaliation claims)
- Warren v. Solo Cup Co., 516 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2008) (factors for assessing whether employees are similarly situated in disparate‑pay cases)
- Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Inc., 470 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2006) (Equal Pay Act: common core of tasks and substantial equality inquiry)
- Jaburek v. Foxx, 813 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2016) (EPA prohibits pay differences for same work)