Hanners v. Trent
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5636
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hanners, a former ISP Master Sergeant, sues under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 alleging race discrimination.
- In Feb 2008 Hanners sent an email with Barbie Doll images using ISP equipment; content included racial/gender stereotypes.
- The email circulated to several ISP employees; an internal investigation followed, with EEO involvement and multiple interviews.
- DII/EEO process found policy violations but not a hostile-work-environment claim; Director Trent imposed discipline after Board recommendation.
- During 2008 ratings/promotion decisions, Hanners’s supervisor lowered his promotion score partly due to the email; Hanners challenged the rating.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; Hanners appeals; Seventh Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct-method proof standard in race discrimination | Hanners shows a mosaic of circumstantial evidence. | No direct evidence; no convincing mosaic linking race to actions. | Affirmed summary judgment; insufficient evidence of racial discrimination. |
| Comparable evidence and non-Caucasian comparators | Eighteen comparators received lighter discipline. | Comparable employees not properly shown to be similarly situated or non-Caucasian. | Insufficient evidence of systematic better treatment of non-Caucasians. |
| Deviations from policy as evidence of discrimination | Deviation from internal procedures suggests pretext. | Deviation explained and not dispositive; policy compliance shown overall. | Minor deviation not enough to avoid summary judgment. |
| Impact of email on promotion rating | Ratings process biased by email incident and pressure to punish Hanners. | Decisionmakers acted on content of email; no demonstrable racial animus by others. | Promotion rating upheld; no racial animus shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial-evidence mosaic permissible for direct method)
- Troupe v. May Department Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994) (comparators must be similarly situated; mosaic not new standard)
- Rudin v. Lincoln Land Cmty. Coll., 420 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2005) (circumstantial-evidence framework; agency deviations probative)
- Sylvester v. SOS Children's Villages Illinois, Inc., 453 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2006) (mosaic approach clarified; not a heightened standard)
- Karazanos v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 948 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1991) (mere speculation insufficient to prove discrimination)
- Phelan v. Cook Cnty., 463 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006) (context of discriminatory comments before adverse action)
- Volovsek v. Wisconsin Dep't of Agric., Trade & Consumer Prot., 344 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2003) (pretext showing via discriminatory context)