Diane Ripberger v. Corizon, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23186

Ripberger (b.1951) was an IDOC Substance Abuse Counselor IV at Pendleton; when IDOC privatized counseling in 2010 Corizon hired staff to replace IDOC counselors and eliminated the Reformatory position Ripberger occupied.
Ripberger had previously supported her supervisor Connie Orton‑Bell’s Title VII complaint against IDOC by advising on grievances and attending hearings as a witness.
Corizon delegated hiring/placement to acting IDOC Substance Abuse Director Schoenradt; Corizon sought continuity of care and hired counselors already holding caseloads in the specific units it continued to staff.
Six positions at Pendleton remained after privatization; Ripberger and six other counselors applied for those openings but Ripberger was not hired for Pendleton (offered other facilities, which she declined by phone).
Ripberger sued Corizon for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA; the district court granted summary judgment for Corizon and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Ripberger's Argument	Corizon's Argument	Held
Sex discrimination (failure to hire)	Corizon hired less‑qualified male (Randy Smith); prior adverse treatment of Orton‑Bell and timing/suspicious facts show sex bias	Hiring prioritized continuity of care; Reformatory position was eliminated; Smith occupied the Outside Dorm caseload so he filled that slot	Affirmed for Corizon — evidence insufficient to show sex was motivating factor; hiring decision legitimate and non‑pretextual
Age discrimination (ADEA)	Younger, less‑qualified hires who later failed certification show age animus	No evidence age motivated decision; Corizon hired several counselors close in age to Ripberger; decision based on caseloads	Affirmed for Corizon — no evidence age was but‑for cause of refusal to hire
Retaliation (Title VII)	Ripberger’s support of Orton‑Bell led to adverse action; suspicious timing, comments by superintendent and a Corizon employee’s speculation show causation	Schoenradt made hiring decisions and attested he did not consider Ripberger’s support of Orton‑Bell; alleged comments/speculation by non‑decisionmakers are speculative and not causally linked	Affirmed for Corizon — no causal link: temporal proximity and speculative remarks insufficient; no proof biased non‑decisionmakers influenced hiring

Zepperi‑Lomanto v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 751 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment facts construed in plaintiff’s favor)
Andrews v. CBOCS W., Inc., 743 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 2014) (direct and indirect methods to prove discrimination)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting prima facie discrimination case)
Hutt v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 757 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (treatment of summary judgment and evidentiary methods)
Bass v. Joliet Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 86, 746 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2014) (ultimate question is whether reasonable jury could find discrimination)
Good v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (circumstantial evidence that may create an inference of discrimination)
Cung Hnin v. TOA (USA), LLC, 751 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff may show pretext by proving employer’s reason is a lie)
Fleishman v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 698 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (ADEA requires but‑for causation)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (ADEA requires plaintiff prove age was but‑for cause)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but‑for causation)
O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1996) (insignificant age difference between employee and replacement does not support inference of age discrimination)