Roberta Jaburek v. Anthony Foxx, 813 F.3d 626

Background

Roberta Jaburek, a Mexican‑descent female FAA employee, worked at GS‑6 as an Administrative Support Assistant but performed many Program Analyst duties from 2008–Jan. 2011.
Supervisors (Hale, Wilson, Lay) exchanged emails in 2010–2011 about her duties; Hale expressly authorized Jaburek to sign ETO documents after the ETO’s retirement.
Jaburek alleges she requested a desk audit and/or promotion but produced no documentary proof; supervisors swore she never applied for promotion or requested an audit.
In Jan. 2011, supervisor Lay reassigned Jaburek to Secretary duties and disabled her PRISM access; Jaburek contacted an EEO counselor on Jan. 21, 2011, and filed an agency EEO complaint May 14, 2011.
Jaburek sued Secretary Anthony Foxx (DOT) asserting: Title VII failure to promote (national origin), Equal Pay Act (sex), and Title VII retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for defendant for lack of prima facie evidence; Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title VII failure to promote — Did FAA discriminatorily fail to promote/pay Jaburek for Program Analyst work?	Jaburek says she performed Program Analyst duties and should have been promoted/paid at higher GS level.	Jaburek never applied for the position or produced evidence of being rejected; supervisors say she never requested promotion/desk audit.	Affirmed for defendant: no prima facie failure‑to‑promote (no application/rejection; no comparator promoted instead).
Equal Pay Act — Did FAA pay men more for equal work at same establishment?	Jaburek identifies male Program Analysts paid more and says her duties were equal.	Comparators are not in same establishment; she produced no evidence comparing specific duties, hours, backgrounds.	Affirmed for defendant: insufficient comparator evidence; no proof of equal work under similar conditions.
Title VII retaliation — Did Lay’s Jan. 2011 actions retaliate for Jaburek’s complaints?	Reassignment and PRISM access removal were retaliatory responses to Jaburek’s complaints about pay/desk audit.	Jaburek’s formal EEO contact and complaint occurred after Lay’s actions; earlier communications lacked oppositional language or proof of complaint.	Affirmed for defendant: no evidence of protected opposition before adverse actions; timing defeats retaliation claim.
Motion for extension / reconsideration — Was district court’s grant of extension to file appeal and denial of reconsideration proper?	Jaburek sought extension because counsel was incapacitated by gout; extension filed timely.	Foxx argued miscalculation, sought reconsideration.	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in granting extension and denying reconsideration (good cause shown).

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard; nonmoving party must designate specific facts)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Title VII retaliation standard: protected opposition + adverse action)
Garofalo v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428 (prima facie failure‑to‑promote elements)
Warren v. Solo Cup Co., 516 F.3d 627 (Equal Pay Act elements)
Cullen v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 338 F.3d 693 (comparability requires common core of tasks)
Johnson v. Gen. Bd. of Pension & Health Benefits of United Methodist Church, 733 F.3d 722 (failure‑to‑promote requires applying for the position)
O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (definition of protected oppositional conduct under Title VII)