Good v. University of Chicago Medical Center
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5070
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Good, white plaintiff, was a lead CT technologist at UCMC Radiology and received performance reviews and PIPs leading to termination in Nov. 2007; she sought demotion instead, citing policy, and was replaced by a white successor.
- UCMC had a four-step corrective policy with PIPs; managerial staff could be terminated at any time and often faced demotion rather than termination.
- Good’s 2007 annual review was below 3, triggering a 90-day PIP focused on patient care, staff efficiency, and overtime; after limited improvement, she received a Final Written Warning and a 30-day PIP with shift transfer.
- Good proposed three non-white comparators who allegedly were allowed to demote instead of be terminated; two non-white managers were demoted, and one African-American lead technologist Balderos-Mason was demoted after similar deficiencies.
- Ed Smith directed Geyer to terminate Good, citing performance concerns; Good was replaced by another white employee, Kristin Runion.
- The district court held Good could not satisfy either direct or indirect methods of proof; Seventh Circuit affirms, finding insufficient evidence of race-based motive under both theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct method of proof sufficiency | Good argues comparators show discrimination. | UCMC denies discriminatory motive. | No triable issue; evidence insufficient to prove discriminatory motive. |
| Indirect method prima facie case | Background circumstances show bias against whites. | No evidence of anti-white bias or history of discrimination. | No prima facie case; judgment for UCMC affirmed. |
| Evaluating comparators and decision-makers | Non-white managers who were demoted show discriminatory pattern. | Managers differed in role; decision-makers varied. | Comparators insufficiently probative; no direct/indirect proof of race bias. |
| Policy deviation and shift in reasons | Policy deviation indicates discriminatory motive. | Reasons for termination consistent with prior concerns; no shift. | Not probative of racial animus; no discrete shift showing motive. |
| Role of replacement and retaliation evidence | Good replaced by white employee after termination implies bias. | Replacement by white employee is not proof of anti-white bias. | Replacement alone does not establish discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phelan v. City of Chicago, 347 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.2003) (background circumstances for reverse discrimination)
- Mills v. Health Care Service Corp., 171 F.3d 450 (7th Cir.1999) (suspicious background showing bias in promotions)
- Cerutti v. BASF Corp., 349 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir.2003) (direct evidence required to prove discriminatory motive)
- Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 F.3d 935 (7th Cir.2003) (direct method proof requirements for discrimination)
- Lim v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 297 F.3d 575 (7th Cir.2002) (direct evidence and inference standards for discrimination)
- Humphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d 387 (7th Cir.2007) (similarly situated standard and comparators)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir.2012) (convincing mosaic and direct/indirect method discussion)
- Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598 (7th Cir.2009) (de novo review of summary judgment)