Naficy v. Illinois Dep't of Human Services
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19538
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Naficy, an Iranian national, sues IDHS alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and §1981; §1981 claims dismissed, Title VII claims awarded summary judgment for IDHS on appeal.
- Naficy previously worked at Madden and Read as a Social Worker; promoted to Social Worker III in 2000 and transferred to Madden in 2000.
- Bailey, Naficy’s supervisor at Madden, allegedly mocked her accent and discriminated in prior complaints (2005 and 2009) without controlling the Howe layoff decisions.
- The Howe Developmental Center closure triggered a layoff process governed by the CBA; bumping procedures prioritized seniority and listed bump options.
- January 2010 notice outlined potential bump options; February 2010 meeting with HR manager Samaras resulted in Naficy being reassigned to a part-time Social Worker III at Madden; she later returned to a full-time position on August 1, 2010.
- Three other Social Worker III employees at Madden were involved in the bumping process (DeJesus, Byrne, Safian); Byrne waived bump rights, and Safian was laid off as Naficy moved into his part-time role.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Naficy showed direct or indirect national-origin discrimination | Naficy argues direct/indirect evidence of bias | IDHS had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons | No triable discrimination evidence; upheld summary judgment |
| Whether Naficy established a valid comparator for the indirect method | DeJesus and Byrne are similarly situated | Differences (language skills, waiver) negate comparators | No valid comparators; discrimination claim fails under McDonnell Douglas |
| Whether Naficy proved a causal connection for retaliation | EEOC complaints motivated reassignment | No causal link; timing insufficient | No retaliation; summary judgment for IDHS |
| Whether Coleman-style framework supports a retaliation finding | Convincing mosaic shows motive | Evidence insufficient to infer motive | Coleman framework not satisfied; no genuine issue of material fact on retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting proof framework for discrimination claims)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (direct/indirect paths converged to Coleman standard for protected activity, adverse action, causation)
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) (§1981 and state agency immunity considerations)
- Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2012) (pretext and evidence sufficiency in discrimination claims)
- Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 682 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of a prima facie case and comparators in discrimination)
- Nagle v. Village of Calumet Park, 554 F.3d 1106 (7th Cir. 2009) (direct evidence and inference standards in discrimination cases)
- Benders v. Bellows & Bellows, 515 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2008) (direct evidence concepts in retaliation cases)