Elizabeth Castro v. DeVry University, Inc.
786 F.3d 559
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Three DeVry employees (Castro, Brooks, Florez) complained to HR on April 16, 2007 that their supervisor Phil Giambone made racially/ethnically derogatory remarks; HR and senior managers were notified and Giambone was transferred in July 2007.
- After the complaint, plaintiffs allege retaliatory acts (reassigned leads, ostracism, demotion/transfer of Castro, supervisory warnings not to go to HR). Each plaintiff was later terminated: Florez (Feb. 21, 2008, ~10 months after complaint), Brooks (July 8, 2008, ~15 months), Castro (Nov. 3, 2009, ~30 months).
- DeVry’s stated reasons: Florez — inconsistent performance and "volatile behavior"; Brooks — dishonesty and inconsistent performance; Castro — sustained poor/inconsistent performance. On appeal DeVry conceded Florez’s performance alone did not justify termination.
- Florez produced evidence undermining the honesty of supervisors’ accounts (contradictory testimony from witnesses, an HR email explicitly referencing his earlier complaint as a reason to separate him, and evidence that DeVry told the EEOC a manager lacked knowledge of the complaint when she in fact knew).
- Brooks relied on disputed dishonesty incidents and challenged performance metrics (arguing some DeVry records showed she met certain targets), but the district court excluded key documents for lack of authentication; her supervisors honestly believed dishonesty/performance problems.
- Castro showed intermittent successful months but had documented, sustained performance shortfalls, prior probation, and missed prorated targets immediately before termination; she could not show DeVry’s stated reason was a pretext tied to the 2007 complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs established causal link (retaliation) from April 2007 complaint to later terminations | Plaintiffs: early retaliatory acts plus timing show a "campaign" culminating in later terminations; pretext evidence supports inference | DeVry: temporal gaps and intervening events (Giambone transferred; other managers made termination decisions) break causation | Timing alone insufficient; must evaluate pretext per plaintiff |
| Florez — pretext and causation | Florez: supervisors fabricated reports of "volatile behavior," corroborating witness says manager tried to get her to lie, HR email ties termination reasons to his complaint | DeVry: managers honestly believed incidents occurred; performance and behavior justified firing; any reference to complaint was litigation caution | Reversed: genuine issue exists as to pretext and causation; summary judgment improper for Florez |
| Brooks — pretext (dishonesty and performance) | Brooks: disputes dishonesty; points to documents showing she met some starts targets, so explanations are inconsistent/shifting | DeVry: supervisors honestly believed dishonesty and relied on performance metrics; documents were unauthenticated and excluded | Affirmed: no genuine issue—supervisors honestly believed misconduct/performance problems; excluded evidence fatal to Brooks |
| Castro — pretext (performance) | Castro: success in several months, proration dispute, and early demotion/transfer after complaint show retaliation | DeVry: long record of inconsistent, poor performance and probation justified termination | Affirmed: sustained performance problems and lack of comparator evidence defeat pretext theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Silverman v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 637 F.3d 729 (7th Cir.) (discusses methods of proof and evidentiary approaches in discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir.) (sets out "convincing mosaic" approach and categories of circumstantial evidence)
- O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (temporal proximity rarely sufficient; pretext and timing analysis)
- Rhodes v. Illinois Dep't of Transportation, 359 F.3d 498 (7th Cir.) (convincing mosaic standard for circumstantial evidence)
- Carter v. Chicago State University, 778 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)