682 F. App'x 471
7th Cir.2017Background
- Shahram Malekpour, an FAA aerospace engineer, sued the FAA under Title VII claiming religion and national-origin discrimination (Muslim, born in Iran) and retaliation after EEOC complaints. These appeals consolidate overlapping suits.
- District court granted summary judgment for the FAA; only a ten-day unpaid suspension was treated as materially adverse.
- Malekpour alleged numerous workplace incidents over ~6 years (name-pronunciation comment, threats, criticisms, reassignment at his request, rescinded leave requests, anonymous note, referral to Accountability Board, EEOC finding on one threat, and a 10-day suspension for allegedly improper government credit-card charges).
- The FAA proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the suspension: unauthorized personal charges and failure to explain them; Malekpour claimed authorization or identity theft but produced no admissible evidence.
- District court concluded incidents were isolated/petty and did not create a hostile work environment; Malekpour did not exhaust administrative procedures for whistleblower/MSPB claims.
- Malekpour also sought court-appointed counsel; district judge denied because Malekpour was not indigent; the court affirmed that denial and other procedural rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged acts constitute "materially adverse" employment actions (discrimination) | Malekpour: many actions (threats, insults, reassignment, credit-card suspension, publicity of suspension) were adverse and show discrimination | FAA: most incidents are petty slights or routine management actions; only the 10-day suspension was materially adverse | Court: only the 10-day suspension was materially adverse; other incidents nonactionable |
| Whether the 10-day suspension is discriminatory or retaliatory (causal/motive) | Malekpour: suspension was pretextual; card use was authorized or due to identity theft; context shows discriminatory/retaliatory motive | FAA: suspension based on legitimate grounds (personal charges and failure to explain); no admissible evidence of pretext | Court: FAA's reason stands; Malekpour failed to present admissible evidence of pretext; summary judgment for FAA |
| Whether the cumulative incidents created a hostile work environment | Malekpour: aggregated incidents over six years amount to hostile work environment | FAA: incidents were infrequent and not severe/pervasive to alter employment conditions | Court: incidents were spaced out and not sufficiently severe or pervasive; hostile-environment claim fails |
| Whether other remedies (First Amendment, Whistleblower Protection Act) were available | Malekpour: also invoked First Amendment and Whistleblower Protection Act | FAA / Court: claims allege discrimination/retaliation covered by Title VII; Whistleblower claims not administratively exhausted and not pled with protected disclosures | Court: Title VII is exclusive remedy for federal employees here; whistleblower/MSPB procedures not followed; other claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Allin v. City of Springfield, 845 F.3d 858 (7th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944 (7th Cir.) (adverse-action requirement for discrimination)
- Poullard v. McDonald, 829 F.3d 844 (7th Cir.) (retaliation requires materially adverse action that would dissuade reasonable employee)
- Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972 (7th Cir.) (hostile work environment standard)
- Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir.) (employer’s stated reason accepted unless shown to be a pretext)
- Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.) (Title VII not a general civility code; hostile-environment limits)
- Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779 (7th Cir.) (when reassignment is materially adverse)
- Hancock v. Potter, 531 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.) (employer accommodation not adverse)
- Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824 (7th Cir.) (trivial workplace grievances are nonactionable)
- Ellis v. CCA of Tenn. LLC, 650 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.) (isolated incidents require extreme severity to be actionable)
- Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (U.S.) (Title VII is exclusive remedy for federal employees alleging discrimination)
- McInnis v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661 (7th Cir.) (administrative exhaustion required for whistleblower claims)