Elaine Scaife v. DVA, 49 F.4th 1109

Elaine Scaife, an African-American HR classifier at the Roudebush VA, consistently received "Outstanding/Excellent" reviews.
Supervisor Gavin Earp allegedly yelled at Scaife, threatened her job, and pressured her to "loosen" classifications (possibly violating rules); he argued with men and women.
Chief of Police Brian Fogg (different department) reportedly called Scaife the N-word in February 2016; Scaife learned of this secondhand in September 2016 and reported it.
Scaife filed an internal EEO complaint; shortly after, Human Resources Officer Weddle sent a written counseling email to Scaife that was placed in her personnel file but imposed no tangible penalty.
Scaife later accepted a lateral, remote position at another VA facility and sued the VA for race- and gender-based hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge; the district court granted summary judgment for the VA, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Race-based hostile work environment	Chief Fogg's use of the N-word about Scaife suffices to create a hostile environment	The slur was uttered months earlier, heard secondhand, and Fogg lacked direct supervisory authority over Scaife	Judgment for employer — one-time, secondhand slur by a non‑direct supervisor was not severe or pervasive under the totality of circumstances
Gender-based hostile work environment	Earp's threats, yelling, and pressure to act illegally show gender-based harassment	Earp treated men and women similarly; disputes were work‑related and not tied to gender	Judgment for employer — plaintiff failed to show conduct was gender‑based or sufficiently severe/pervasive
Retaliation	Counseling email followed shortly after Scaife's EEO complaint and was retaliatory	The counseling was not a tangible adverse action (no low rating, pay cut, or discipline)	Judgment for employer — counseling alone did not constitute an adverse employment action
Constructive discharge	Hostile conditions and post‑EEO counseling forced Scaife to leave	No intolerable conditions or indication employer was about to fire her; she accepted a lateral transfer with same pay	Judgment for employer — plaintiff failed both the elevated hostile‑work‑environment standard and the "reasonable person compelled to resign" test

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment test)
Paschall v. Tube Processing Corp., 28 F.4th 805 (7th Cir. 2022) (one‑time use of slur can sometimes suffice)
Smith v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 936 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2019) (egregious nature of the N‑word)
Gates v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 916 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2019) (weight of supervisor's direct remarks)
Dandy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 388 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2004) (secondhand remarks carry less weight)
Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (supervisor harassment significance)
Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2014) (elements for hostile work environment claim)
Lambert v. Peri Formworks Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2013) (totality‑of‑circumstances factors)
Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (circumstantial evidence for retaliation)
Sweeney v. West, 149 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 1998) (counseling letters not adverse actions absent tangible consequences)
Fischer v. Avanade, Inc., 519 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2008) (constructive discharge standards)