Deloria Johnson v. Eric Holder, Jr.
700 F.3d 979
7th Cir.2012Background
- Deloria Johnson, a 67-year-old African-American woman, worked 16 years as a secretary/legal assistant at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois until retiring in September 2007.
- Weeks before retirement, Johnson had a verbal altercation with coworker Mosley about supervisor Getty; Johnson allegedly used terms including “puke” in criticizing Mosley’s praise of Getty.
- Management reassigned Johnson for 120 days to the eleventh-floor file room to index a large backlog of cases, without changing salary or benefits but altering duties and work restrictions.
- Johnson’s file-room assignment limited her to that space during business hours, barred entry for others, and prohibited overtime; after a lower-expectation intro period, she retired before the assignment expired.
- Johnson sued DOJ for race, sex, and age discrimination, asserting a direct-discrimination mosaic and an indirect-method prima facie case based on similarly situated employees.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DOJ, concluding Johnson failed to produce a genuine issue of material fact under either the direct or indirect method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson proved a mosaic of circumstantial evidence under direct method | Johnson asserts she was treated differently from similarly situated employees outside protected classes. | Jo hnson failed to show admissible, probative, non-hearsay evidence or a valid set of similarly situated comparators. | No genuine issue; Johnson failed to prove a valid mosaic or valid comparators. |
| Whether Johnson identified validly similarly situated employees for comparison | Identified Bithos and file-room men as comparators for disparate treatment. | Those individuals were not similarly situated (different position, duties, supervisors) to Johnson. | No valid similarly situated employees established. |
| Whether Johnson’s interrogatory answers could be used to establish admissible evidence of discrimination | Interrogatory answers contained non-hearsay observations supporting comparators and events. | Some answers contain hearsay; only admissible portions may be used; Luster limits apply. | District court erred in treating certain content but Johnson still failed to show a prima facie case. |
| Whether Johnson established a prima facie case under the indirect method | Johnson belonged to protected classes, met expectations, suffered an adverse action, and was treated differently from others. | No evidence that comparators were similarly situated or that treatment differed due to protected status. | No prima facie case; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether DOJ’s nondiscriminatory rationale for the reassignment was pretextual | The stated reason is illegitimate and pretextual given Johnson’s protected characteristics. | Pretext not reached because no prima facie case established. | Not reached; judgment affirmed on failure to establish prima facie case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luster v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 652 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2011) (admissibility of interrogatory answers for summary judgment; personal knowledge required)
- Hardrick v. City of Bolingbrook, 522 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2008) (interrogatories may be considered if content would be admissible at trial)
- Harris v. Warrick County Sheriff's Dept., 666 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2012) (similarly situated requirement; relevant similarities in misconduct and discipline)
- Rodgers v. White, 657 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011) (most relevant similarities are misconduct, performance standards, disciplining supervisor)
- Good v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (prima facie case required under indirect method; not satisfied here)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2011) (as to material adverse action analysis; depends on prima facie case viability)