Sisawat Singmuongthong v. Edwin Bowen, 77 F.4th 503

Sisawat Singmuongthong, a tan‑colored Asian of Laotian origin, worked for the Illinois Department of Corrections from 1998; promoted to assistant warden in Dec. 2016 and received a 5% pay increase. Bowen was chief of staff and Baldwin was acting director.
Warden Anthony Williams was investigated and terminated in early 2018 for sexual misconduct; the Williams investigation also faulted Singmuongthong for poor administrative judgment (failure to report misconduct, spending time at bars with subordinates).
Singmuongthong applied or expressed interest in the warden position but was not selected; he later was terminated (termination and retaliation claims abandoned on appeal).
He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging (on appeal) disparate pay on promotion and discriminatory failure to promote based on race/color/national origin.
District court granted summary judgment to Bowen and Baldwin; on appeal Singmuongthong challenges only the pay and failure‑to‑promote rulings.
Court applied § 1981’s but‑for causation requirement and reviewed summary judgment de novo, evaluating all evidence together (direct and circumstantial).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate pay on promotion to assistant warden	Baldwin/Bowen paid him only a 5% raise while some non‑Asian comparators received larger raises — inference of race‑based pay discrimination	The 5% raise was the standard internal promotion increase; exceptions (larger or smaller raises) arose for external hires, low prior pay, acting appointments, or caps set by Central Management Services and budget/Governor direction; comparators were not similarly situated	Affirmed. Plaintiff admitted standard 5% practice; comparators were dissimilar or fell within recognized exceptions; no evidence of pretext or but‑for race causation
Failure to promote to warden	He was qualified, assistant wardens were routinely promoted, and he performed warden duties (acting responsibilities), so denying promotion was discriminatory	Department relied on investigation findings that implicated the warden and raised concerns about Singmuongthong’s judgment; employer could self‑identify candidates and decline to offer the job without soliciting interest	Affirmed. Investigation produced legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; comparators not similarly situated (none implicated in misconduct); acting over duties did not negate reliance on investigation; no showing of pretext

Lewis v. Indiana Wesleyan Univ., 36 F.4th 755 (7th Cir. 2022) (de novo review of summary judgment in employment discrimination context)
Comcast Corp. v. National Assoc. of African American‑Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) (§ 1981 requires but‑for causation)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Igasaki v. Illinois Dept. of Financial & Professional Regulation, 988 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2021) (courts must evaluate all evidence together)
Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (same‑pile evidence principle for summary judgment)
Barnes v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, 946 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2020) (premise that prima facie and pretext inquiries often overlap)
Tyburski v. City of Chicago, 964 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2020) (elements of prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas)
Logan v. City of Chicago, 4 F.4th 529 (7th Cir. 2021) (summary judgment asks whether evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude discrimination)