Simpson v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc.
827 F.3d 656
7th Cir.2016Background
- Arlene Simpson, a registered nurse over 40 and African American, worked at Franciscan St. James beginning 2008 and was supervised by Maureen Kelly from 2009. Kelly issued four progressive written Employee Corrective Action Reports between Oct. 2010 and Sept. 2011, culminating in Simpson’s termination.
- The reprimands involved alleged failures to follow physician orders, directing a technician to perform nursing procedures and falsifying presence, multiple patient/family complaints about rudeness and attitude, and removing a morphine pump after confronting a patient. Simpson disputed the truth of the complaints but did not deny that complaints were made.
- Simpson filed EEOC/IDHR charges asserting age and race discrimination and sued in 2013 under the ADEA and Title VII; gender and ADA claims were later abandoned.
- At summary judgment St. James argued Simpson failed to meet performance expectations, pointed to the four reprimands and evaluations as nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, and contended Simpson had no admissible comparator evidence.
- Simpson submitted prior favorable reviews, disputed the incidents, and affidavits (her own and a coworker’s) alleging knowledge of white or younger nurses who were not disciplined after complaints; the district court found those affidavits sufficient to establish a prima facie case but held Simpson failed to show pretext.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded Simpson failed to present admissible evidence of similarly situated comparators or a basis for her and her coworker’s claimed personal knowledge, and affirmed summary judgment for St. James.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination under McDonnell Douglas (Age and Race) | Simpson: disciplinary actions were pretext; she met employer’s expectations and shows disparate treatment via affidavits about other nurses | St. James: Simpson was not meeting expectations; four documented reprimands furnish legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; no admissible comparator evidence | Held: Simpson failed to establish prima facie case—no admissible evidence of similarly situated non-protected comparators |
| Whether proffered reason (accumulation of reprimands) was pretextual | Simpson: disputes accuracy of complaints and argues selective enforcement shows pretext | St. James: reprimands and review process provide legitimate reason; complaints were made and relied upon | Held: Simpson offered only speculation and inadmissible hearsay; no evidence to show the reprimands were pretextual |
| Admissibility/foundation for comparator affidavits | Simpson: affidavits from herself and coworker assert personal knowledge of nondisciplinary treatment of others | St. James: affidavits are vague, conclusory, and hearsay without foundation; Simpson previously admitted lack of comparator knowledge | Held: Affidavits lacked foundation and admissible personal knowledge; cannot contradict prior deposition admissions |
| Interaction of prima facie inquiry and pretext analysis | Simpson: disputed facts over reasons for termination present jury question | St. James: even if disputes exist, Simpson must first show prima facie case and admissible comparators | Held: Court noted overlap but affirmed dismissal on failure to make prima facie showing; pretext inquiry not met either |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes indirect burden-shifting framework)
- Bordelon v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 811 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)
- Sweatt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 796 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2015) (McDonnell Douglas applies to ADEA and Title VII claims)
- Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2016) (elements of prima facie case)
- Andrews v. CBOCS W., Inc., 743 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 2014) (burden-shifting explanation and pretext allocation)
- Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., 772 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2014) (overlap of prima facie and pretext inquiries)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (comparator proof and personal knowledge requirements)
- Gates v. Caterpillar, Inc., 513 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2008) (comparator must be similar in material respects)
- Zayas v. Rockford Mem’l Hosp., 740 F.3d 1154 (7th Cir. 2014) (employer’s stated reason need not be fair, only genuine)