Smith v. Chicago Transit Authority
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20370
7th Cir.2015Background
- Robert Smith, a black CTA Transportation Manager since 1986, was accused in October 2006 by bus operator Marcella McCall of soliciting a striptease and proposing a sexual relationship; McCall reported because Smith had been her supervisor.
- The CTA’s EEO Unit (led by Pamela Beavers, staffed by Thelma Crigler, Alenda Young, and Salvador Ramirez) investigated; Young and Ramirez conducted interviews and Ramirez concluded Smith violated the sexual-harassment policy.
- William Mooney, vice president of bus operations, received the EEO report, had operations management (Walter Thomas) review and request legal advice, and then fired Smith on January 24, 2007, citing the harassment finding among other reasons.
- Smith filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination, received a right-to-sue letter, sued pro se (later amended with counsel) asserting Title VII and § 1981 claims and a defamation claim (the latter abandoned).
- At summary judgment the district court concluded Smith presented neither direct evidence nor sufficient indirect (McDonnell Douglas) proof of racial discrimination; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | CTA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith presented direct evidence or a convincing mosaic showing the EEO Unit prosecuted him because of race | EEO Unit had exclusive investigatory authority and routinely let operations investigate white employees, so EEO scrutiny of Smith is direct evidence of discriminatory intent | No evidence that investigations were channeled by race or that EEO personnel were biased; deviations cited by Smith are unsupported or minor | Rejected — record lacks evidence that investigatory routing or process reflected racial animus; direct method fails |
| Whether Smith can proceed under McDonnell Douglas (indirect method) | The harassment finding was pretextual; claimant identified a white comparator (David Schaefer) allegedly treated more leniently | Smith failed to show he met legitimate expectations or identify a properly similar comparator with comparable misconduct and different discipline | Rejected — Smith did not establish a prima facie case or show pretext; comparator evidence was too incomplete |
| Whether the decisionmaker (Mooney) was biased or subject to a cat’s paw theory | EEO Unit manipulated Mooney to fire Smith because of race (cat’s paw liability) | No evidence Mooney harbored racial bias; replacement was also black; no evidence EEO acted from racial animus | Rejected — no proof EEO acted with discriminatory intent to infect Mooney’s decision |
| Whether procedural flaws in the EEO investigation raise an inference of discrimination | Failures (investigator’s delayed recusal, not interviewing a witness, minor inconsistencies) show systematic deviation and bias | Procedural irregularities were minor and do not connect to racial animus or show systematic discriminatory practice | Rejected — cited irregularities insufficient to infer discriminatory intent |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s paw liability — employer liable when biased subordinate’s influence causes adverse action)
- Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (Supreme Court application of McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Davis v. Con-Way Transp. Cent. Express, Inc., 368 F.3d 776 (direct method/convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence)
- Antonetti v. Abbott Labs., 563 F.3d 587 (elements of prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas)
- Wolf v. Buss (Am.) Inc., 77 F.3d 914 (pretext defined as a phony reason)
- Hobgood v. Ill. Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d 635 (significant, unexplained deviations from policy can indicate discriminatory intent)
- Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 682 F.3d 698 (standard of review for summary judgment in discrimination cases)