Joel Reinebold v. Steve Bruce, 18 F.4th 922

Indiana University South Bend posted for head baseball coach; an eight‑person hiring committee included Athletic Director Steve Bruce and Assistant Athletic Director Tom Norris.
Ninety‑four applicants applied; eleven received phone interviews, including Joel Reinebold (56) and Doug Buysse (31).
Reinebold performed poorly in his phone interview; the committee unanimously declined to advance him and invited Buysse (who performed well) to an in‑person interview; Bruce made the final hiring decision and Buysse was hired.
Reinebold sued under the ADEA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; he conceded all claims except § 1983 claims against Bruce and Norris in their individual capacities.
The district court granted summary judgment to Bruce and Norris, finding no suitable comparator and no evidence of age‑based intent; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a similarly situated comparator was identified	Reinebold: Buysse is a comparator because both had same application path and Buysse was hired	Bruce/Norris: Buysse is not similarly situated—he performed well in his phone interview while Reinebold performed poorly	Not similarly situated; comparator fails; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the decision was motivated by age discrimination	Reinebold: subjective criteria plus remarks (note “looking for a retirement job,” barber’s account saying “younger guy”) and greater experience show age animus	Bruce/Norris: no evidence linking age to the hiring decision; subjective evaluation is permissible; committee unanimously voted based on interview performance	No evidence of age‑based intent; stray remarks/speculation insufficient; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the district court impermissibly weighed evidence on summary judgment	Reinebold: court made credibility determinations and discounted potentially probative evidence	Bruce/Norris: court properly treated the barber remark as a stray comment and Cooper’s note as speculative among evaluative comments	No improper weighing; court’s treatment proper; summary judgment appropriate

Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. Conveyor Accessories, Inc., 955 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2020) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
Levin v. Madigan, 692 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2012) (§ 1983 is available for age‑based equal protection claims)
Medlock v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 738 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2013) (state actors acting under color of law for university hiring)
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (age classifications subject to rational basis review)
Smith v. City of Chicago, 457 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements for equal protection claim under rational basis)
Srail v. Village of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2009) (requirement for similarly situated comparators)
Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 424 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2005) (comparators must be prima facie identical in relevant respects)
Formella v. Brennan, 817 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2016) (differences in interview preparedness defeat comparator claims)
Blise v. Antaramian, 409 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2005) (employers may use subjective criteria in applicant evaluations)
Cullen v. Olin Corp., 195 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 1999) (isolated or stray remarks insufficient to prove discriminatory motive)
Pulera v. Sarzant, 966 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff must show triable issue on each element to avoid summary judgment)