Lionel Bordelon v. Board of Education of the City
811 F.3d 984
7th Cir.2016Background
- Lionel Bordelon, age 63, was principal of Kozminski Community Academy since 1993; the Local School Council (Council) votes on principal contract renewals while the Board of Education (Board) employs Chief Area Officer Judith Coates who supervised Bordelon.
- Coates became Chief Area Officer for Area 15 in Oct. 2009; Bordelon alleges she sought his removal beginning in late 2010 and initiated disciplinary actions and a negative evaluation.
- On Jan. 28, 2011, while Bordelon was suspended with pay pending investigations, the Council voted not to renew his contract (3 no, 3 yes, 3 abstain); Bordelon retired effective June 30, 2011.
- Bordelon sued the Board under the ADEA (age discrimination), alleging Coates influenced the Council (a "cat’s paw" theory); district court granted summary judgment to the Board and excluded several pieces of evidence as inadmissible or conclusory.
- On appeal, Bordelon argued direct/circumstantial evidence of Coates’s age animus and that Coates’s input caused the Council’s nonrenewal; the Seventh Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is admissible direct or circumstantial evidence that Coates acted from age-based animus toward Bordelon | Bordelon points to (1) Coates’s alleged remark that it was “time for [Bordelon] to give it up” at a Council meeting, (2) testimony about a list of "older" principals, and (3) statements that Coates favored younger employees | Board (and Coates) argued the remarks were not about age, the list included younger principals and reflected poor school performance, and other testimony was conclusory/hearsay lacking foundation | Court held evidence insufficient to infer discriminatory intent; ambiguous remark tied to performance, list and witness statements were not probative of age animus and some were properly excluded |
| Whether Bordelon can hold the Board liable under a cat’s paw theory for the Council’s decision | Bordelon argued Coates had discriminatory animus and provided information that influenced the Council’s nonrenewal, making the Board liable | Board argued the Council was an independent decisionmaker and Bordelon offered no admissible evidence that Coates actually harbored age bias that affected the Council | Court held Bordelon failed to show a biased subordinate with discriminatory animus influenced the decision; substantial independent reasons existed for the Council’s action, so cat’s paw liability fails |
| Admissibility of additional witness statements and affidavit evidence (e.g., principals’ complaints, Clarice Berry affidavit) | Bordelon offered testimony/affidavits claiming Coates treated older principals worse and gave less support to their schools | Board challenged those items as hearsay, lacking foundation, conclusory, or unauthoritative for Rule 801(d)(2) purposes | Court affirmed exclusion: many statements were inadmissible hearsay or conclusory and the witnesses lacked authority to bind the Board; exclusion was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s paw theory; employer liability for biased subordinate’s influence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards and burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute/material fact standard for summary judgment)
- Lucas v. Chicago Transit Auth., 367 F.3d 714 (exclusion of conclusory evidence on summary judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371 (admissible evidence requirement to oppose summary judgment)
- Robinson v. PPG Indus., Inc., 23 F.3d 1159 (ambiguous age-related remarks can support inference of age bias in context)
- Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 662 F.3d 818 ("convincing mosaic" standard for circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent)
- Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 (cat’s paw liability requires evidence biased subordinate harbored animus that affected decision)