79 F.4th 835
7th Cir.2023Background
- Rochelle Hambrick, a Black manager born in 1970, worked at the SSA Great Lakes center for ~35 years and was reassigned to the PITAG unit in January 2016.
- After the transfer she remained a GS-13 manager but alleges degraded treatment: moved to a cubicle, omitted from the management directory, critical or frequent emails from other managers, heavy workload, and routine discipline/meetings.
- She applied for several promotions/development programs (including 2017 LEAD) and was repeatedly not selected; 2017 LEAD went to John Bajorek (younger, white) per supervisor Lenoir’s non‑discriminatory explanation.
- Hambrick received a lower performance rating ("3/5") in 2019 and included that review in her EEO complaints; she filed EEO complaints in 2016 and 2020 and then sued in federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the SSA on discrimination and hostile work environment claims; Hambrick appealed only the hostile work environment ruling.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: the incidents were not severe or pervasive, and Hambrick failed to show they were tied to her race or age.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion/timeliness — may time‑barred acts support a hostile‑work‑environment claim? | Hambrick: her timely 2019 review exhausts the claim and earlier/time‑barred incidents can be considered as part of the same hostile practice. | SSA: time‑barred discrete acts cannot be used to support a hostile‑work‑environment claim. | Court: Green v. Brennan allows use of time‑barred acts as part of a hostile‑work‑environment claim if at least one act is timely; court considered related acts but found most were not part of the same practice. |
| Severity/pervasiveness of alleged conduct | Hambrick: cumulative roster omissions, cubicle reassignment, emails, heavy workload, meetings, and low rating created an abusive environment. | SSA: incidents are ordinary workplace disputes, assignments, or administrative annoyances, not objectively abusive. | Court: incidents were isolated/ordinary workplace disputes and not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions. |
| Discriminatory motive (race/age) | Hambrick: non‑selection for positions and faster advancement of younger/non‑Black employees show race/age bias (e.g., LEAD 2017). | SSA: selections and evaluations had nondiscriminatory reasons; plaintiff offers no evidence linking adverse acts to race or age. | Court: plaintiff failed to connect acts to protected characteristics; nondiscriminatory explanations unrebutted by evidence. |
| Employer liability (summary judgment appropriate?) | Hambrick: supervisor actions and omissions show hostile environment attributable to SSA. | SSA: no actionable harassment; summary judgment proper. | Court: because conduct was not severe/pervasive or shown to be discriminatory, summary judgment for SSA affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (exhaustion rule distinguishing discrete acts from hostile‑work‑environment claims)
- Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (time‑barred discrete acts may be considered as part of a timely hostile‑work‑environment claim)
- Trahanas v. Northwestern Univ., 64 F.4th 842 (elements required for hostile‑work‑environment claim)
- Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972 (definition: workplace "permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult")
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (objective‑reasonable‑person standard for hostile environment)
- Reynolds v. Tangherlini, 737 F.3d 1093 (scope of administrative proceedings limits subsequent court claims)