Dickerson v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 522
657 F.3d 595
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Dickerson is a mildly mentally impaired part-time janitor at District 522 seeking full-time promotion; his disability is acknowledged in records.
- Dickerson was not promoted in 2005, 2006, or August 2007; a 2007 evaluation found many performance deficiencies.
- December 18, 2007 written evaluation rated Dickerson as Satisfactory in some categories and Unsatisfactory in three, with overall Unsatisfactory.
- February 7, 2008 EEOC discrimination charge filed; July 17, 2008 follow-up evaluation continued to flag poor performance and recommended firing.
- Dickerson was terminated September 10, 2008; an arbitration later reinstated him to part-time work due to contractual discipline issues.
- District court granted summary judgment for District 522; Dickerson appealed challenging discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under direct method | Dickerson argues ADA discrimination via hostile actions based on disability. | District 522 contends no direct evidence of discriminatory intent and performance issues justify actions. | No direct-evidence showing disability-based discrimination; insufficient to survive summary judgment. |
| Discrimination under indirect method | Dickerson shows he met expectations and was treated worse than non-disabled peers. | Records show ongoing performance problems; evidence does not create a prima facie case of discrimination. | Dickerson failed to show he was meeting legitimate expectations; no prima facie case under indirect method. |
| Retaliation under direct method | Friederich remark and timing suggest retaliation for EEOC activity. | Remark after EEOC filing is insufficient; firing tied to documented performance issues. | Insufficient to prove direct retaliation; no causal link established beyond performance record. |
| Retaliation under indirect method | Dickerson's protected activity caused adverse action despite adequate performance. | Action based on unsatisfactory performance and supervision history; no pretext established. | Plaintiff failed to show he was performing satisfactorily and singled out; no indirect retaliation success. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lloyd v. Swifty Transp., Inc., 552 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2009) (prima facie elements and burden-shifting under indirect ADA proof)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (establishing the burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Casna v. City of Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) (direct v. indirect proof under ADA retaliation context)
- Berry v. Chicago Transit Auth., 618 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2010) (un corroborated nonmovant testimony at summary judgment limitations)
- Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266 (7th Cir. 1997) (honest basis for employer's stated reasons; not perfection requirement)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) (supervisor's discriminatory act as proximate cause of adverse action)