Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10795

Pamela Ferrill, a Black principal hired for a 2‑year term with an automatic third‑year rollover unless the school board opted out, led Edgewood Elementary (predominantly white suburbs).
During her tenure staff complaints documented low morale and alleged Ferrill was confrontational, inconsistent, nonresponsive, and quick to accuse others of racism.
The superintendent repeatedly set goals and a performance‑improvement plan; an outside consultant concluded Ferrill resisted help and recommended removal.
Superintendent Burmeister recommended the Board opt out of Ferrill’s contract rollover in January 2010; the Board accepted and later treated Ferrill’s acceptance of another job as resignation.
Ferrill sued for racial discrimination (Title VII and § 1981) and retaliation (Title VII and First Amendment). The district court granted summary judgment on claims tied to the contract‑rollover decision; remaining claims were tried and the jury found for the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Board’s decision not to roll over Ferrill’s contract discriminatory (race)?	Ferrill says the Board tolerated white staff hostility toward her and acted out of racial bias after she raised racial issues; timing of complaints shows retaliatory/discriminatory motive.	The Board contends Ferrill repeatedly failed to meet legitimate performance expectations; documentation and an independent consultant confirm nonracial performance reasons.	Court: No triable discrimination claim; Ferrill did not show she was meeting the employer’s legitimate expectations—summary judgment for Board.
Was the Board’s decision retaliatory under Title VII (but‑for causation)?	Ferrill contends her complaints about racism constitute protected activity and the opt‑out was retaliation for that opposition.	The Board argues Ferrill’s complaints primarily concerned student conduct (not Title VII) and, even if protected, the opt‑out was based on longstanding performance problems confirmed by consultants.	Court: Retaliation claim fails for lack of causal (but‑for) link; record shows legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (performance) for the opt‑out.

Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (unified framework for assessing discrimination at summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
Smith v. Chicago Transit Auth., 806 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing McDonnell Douglas and performance‑expectation element)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim)