Lily Abebe v. Health and Hospital Corporatio, 35 F.4th 601

Lily Abebe, a Black woman of Ethiopian origin, worked as an expanded‑function dental assistant at Eskenazi Health beginning in 2014 and had documented interpersonal/communication issues in prior reviews (2015–2017).
Her 2018 performance review gave a weighted average of 1.43 (below the 2.0 threshold), so she did not receive a merit raise based on 2018 performance.
Relevant incidents: a March 2018 needle incident (Abebe sought an incident report), ongoing conflict with Dr. Raquel Salvador in 2018, and a March 2019 dispute over access to dental burs (the last occurred after the 2018 review).
Abebe contacted the EEOC in August–September 2019 alleging race and national‑origin discrimination; Eskenazi discussed/briefly issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) around September 2019 but never delivered a written PIP and later withdrew it.
Abebe sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for discrimination (low review/no raise) and retaliation (PIP after EEOC contact); the district court granted summary judgment for Eskenazi Health, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination — adverse review/no raise	Abebe: low 2018 scores and withheld raise were motivated by race and national origin; comparators (white/Hispanic coworkers) were treated better	Eskenazi: scores reflected Abebe’s confrontational communication and teamwork problems; proposed comparators were not similarly situated	Court: No prima facie case—comparators improper; employer offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and Abebe failed to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed
Retaliation — PIP after EEOC contact	Abebe: contacting EEOC was protected activity; issuance of a PIP shortly afterward was retaliatory and materially adverse	Eskenazi: any PIP was withdrawn and not sufficiently onerous to be materially adverse; timing alone does not prove causation	Court: PIP was not shown to be a materially adverse action and timing alone insufficient for causation; retaliation claim fails; summary judgment affirmed

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
Simpson v. Franciscan All., Inc., 827 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2016) (prima facie elements for Title VII discrimination)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (similarly‑situated/comparator and timing/causation rules)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
Davis v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wis., L.P., 651 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2011) (performance‑improvement plans are not per se adverse actions)
Lauth v. Covance, Inc., 863 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2017) (disagreement with supervisor’s assessment does not alone show pretext)
Cole v. Illinois, 562 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2009) (PIP held not to constitute an adverse action)