Norman-Nunnery v. Madison Area Technical College
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23185
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Norman-Nunnery, an African-American woman with a PhD, applied for MATC's DRS Administrator in 2005 and was not interviewed.
- MATC used depth-and-breadth criteria scored by a committee to select top candidates; Norman-Nunnery was minimally qualified but not among top ten.
- The committee learned Norman-Nunnery's race (via an EEO sheet) after initial screening; no evidence any decision-maker saw her race before interviews.
- A second hiring meeting, prompted by concerns about minority representation, excluded Norman-Nunnery from the interview pool; Hall, a white candidate, was ultimately hired.
- Fujimoto (Diversity Coordinator) and others discussed Norman-Nunnery's connection to Willie Nunnery and potential bias; documents related to the hiring were later missing or lost.
- Norman-Nunnery filed an ERD charge and then a federal suit alleging Title VII race discrimination and marital association retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for MATC and defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spoliation supports an inference of discrimination | Norman-Nunnery seeks an inference the missing documents favored her claims. | No bad-faith destruction; documents disappeared due to office moves with no evidence of intent to hide. | No spoliation inference; no bad-faith destruction shown. |
| Whether defendants knew Norman-Nunnery's race or marital status and whether that knowledge supports discrimination | Defendants knew she was African-American and married to Willie Nunnery; then discriminated. | Even if knowledge existed, no evidence that it caused the non-discriminatory reason or pretext. | Knowledge disputed but pretext not shown. |
| Whether the non-discriminatory reason (depth-and-breadth scores) was pretext for race discrimination | Relying on pretext from shifting explanations and Fujimoto's study shows discriminatory intent. | Scores were applied uniformly; criteria were pre-established; study is not direct evidence of individual discrimination. | No pretext; district court affirmed. |
| Whether Norman-Nunnery's marital association retaliation claim survives | Retaliation for husband's prior suit affected hiring. | Unable to prove that marriage to Willie Nunnery motivated the hiring decision. | Marital association claim fails; insufficient evidence of motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2002) (spoliation requires evidence of bad-faith destruction to draw adverse inference)
- Faas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2008) (bad-faith motive required for spoliation inference)
- Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (spoliation inference requires intent to hide adverse information)
- Baylie v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 476 F.3d 522 (7th Cir. 2007) (data must be coupled with context to show discrimination)
- O'Neal v. City of New Albany, 293 F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2002) (prima facie case elements and burden shifting in hiring)
- Senner v. Northcentral Technical College, 113 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1997) (overlap between qualifications and pretext analysis)
- Everroad v. Scott Truck Systems, Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (pretext analysis when overlapping with qualifications)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Christensen v. County of Boone, 483 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2007) (due process/intimate association considerations in retaliation)
- Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 1999) (retaliation analysis under intimate association principles)