Paul Hester v. Indiana State Department of He
726 F.3d 942
7th Cir.2013Background
- Hester, white male microbiologist for Indiana Dept. of Health, was terminated in 2009 after performance issues and a Work Improvement Plan.
- Hester claimed the firing and non-promotion to Bench Supervisor were due to race, gender, or age discrimination; age claim later conceded as unsupported by evidence.
- District court granted summary judgment for Department, holding Indiana immune from private ADEA damages and that record failed to show discriminatory motivation.
- Hester appealed; the panel analyzed discrimination claims directly (race/gender) and acknowledged potential age claim issues but found no evidence of age-based bias either.
- Court discussed sovereign immunity waiver questions arising from removal to federal court but avoided deciding those issues on the merits because discrimination claims lacked evidence.
- Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling against Hester on race and gender claims and noted age claim lacked additional support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hester proved race or gender discrimination. | Hester argues disparate treatment in promotion and discipline shows bias. | Department presents neutral reasons; no evidence of bias or similarly situated comparators supporting discrimination. | No triable discrimination claim; insufficient evidence of bias. |
| Whether Hester proved age discrimination under the ADEA. | Age bias similarly evidenced as other protected-class claims. | No evidence of age-based motive beyond race/gender claim; age claim drops out. | Age claim lacking evidence; disposed with Title VII claims. |
| Whether removal to federal court waived Indiana’s immunity from ADEA damages. | Removal affects sovereign immunity as to damages under ADEA. | Removal may invoke federal jurisdiction but does not automatically waive all immunity from liability. | Court circumvents wholesale adoption of waiver theory; affirms district ruling without resolving broader waiver questions. |
| Whether Indiana’s sovereign immunity bars damages under ADEA following Kimel. | Kimel forecloses damages liability for age discrimination by states. | Indiana does not recognize private ADEA damages; removal posture complicates waiver analysis. | Sovereign immunity bars private ADEA damages; affirm summary judgment on immunity grounds as applicable. |
| Whether district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims. | Evidence supports pretext and discriminatory motive. | Evidence shows neutral reasons; no pretext shown; actions consistent with performance issues. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine material fact on claims of race/gender discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (U.S. 2000) (state immunity from private damages for age discrimination)
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (U.S. 2002) (removal waives immunities in federal court when state would be liable in state court)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (U.S. 2003) (pretext and burden-shifting in discrimination claims)
- Good v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (circumstantial evidence and McDonnell Douglas framework in Title VII cases)
- Pitasi v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 184 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 1999) (evidence of discrimination via comparisons and pretext)
- Mills v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 171 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 1999) (promotion patterns and gender balance as evidence of no bias)
- Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1998) ( sovereign immunity and removal considerations)
- Phoenix Int’l Software, Inc. v. Wis. Bd. of Regents, 653 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2011) (copyright claim waiver mechanics in a state context)
- Bergemann v. R.I. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 665 F.3d 336 (1st Cir. 2011) (waiver by removal contexts and state immunity)
- Stewart v. North Carolina, 393 F.3d 484 (4th Cir. 2005) (removal and state immunity considerations)