Donna Nicholson v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809

Donna Nicholson, a Peoria police officer since 1991, served nine years as Asset Forfeiture investigator and applied for reappointment under a 2012 Rotation Policy requiring three-year rotations.
Nicholson interviewed in October 2012; the selection panel found her interview poor (refused to answer until reading a nine‑page statement) and chose Officer Troy Skaggs, who performed well in the interview.
Nicholson filed EEOC charges alleging sex discrimination and retaliation (stemming from earlier complaints against Officer Jeffrey Wilson and an internal affairs investigation); she later sued after receiving a right‑to‑sue letter.
The district court granted summary judgment to the City and Chief Settingsgaard on Nicholson’s Title VII and § 1983 claims and denied Nicholson’s motions for reconsideration and to disqualify Judge Mihm; Nicholson appealed.
Nicholson argued (1) the rotation/selection decision was sex‑discriminatory and (2) retaliatory for her prior complaints; she also argued Judge Mihm should recuse for prior employment with the City.
The Seventh Circuit evaluated the record under Ortiz’s unified evidentiary approach and affirmed summary judgment and denial of recusal as frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sex discrimination under Title VII: did Nicholson lose reappointment because of sex?	Nicholson: non‑selection was motivated by sex and the Rotation Policy targeted her.	City: selection was based on interview merit; Skaggs interviewed better; Rotation Policy applied broadly.	Affirmed: no admissible evidence of sex‑based causation; selection explained by interview performance.
Retaliation (Title VII / § 1983): was reassignment retaliation for prior complaints?	Nicholson: prior EEOC complaints about Wilson led to adverse action.	City: selection occurred >1 year after last related charge; decision was due to poor interview.	Affirmed: no but‑for causal showing; temporal gap and lack of evidence defeat claim.
Pattern or practice of sex discrimination	Nicholson: alleged multiple incidents show a pattern.	City: instances are isolated and unrelated.	Affirmed: three incidents over years insufficient to show pattern.
Recusal of Judge Mihm under 28 U.S.C. § 455	Nicholson: Mihm’s prior City employment creates potential bias.	City: Mihm’s City employment ended decades earlier; no basis for reasonable question of impartiality.	Affirmed: recusal motion frivolous; no reasonable basis to disqualify.

Burton v. Bd. of Regents, 851 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for retaliation and summary judgment review)
Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (doctrine removing rigid direct/indirect evidence distinction in Title VII cases)
Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2012) (retaliation elements under Title VII and § 1983)