Van Antwerp v. City of Peoria, Ill.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24836
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Van Antwerp joined Peoria Police Department in 1988 as a patrol officer.
- In Sept 2006 he applied for a Crime Scene Unit technician vacancy with anticipated January 2007 start, and was interviewed.
- A personnel order transferred Tuttle and Van Antwerp; Tuttle transferred immediately.
- The Department later rescinded Van Antwerp’s transfer, citing that the January opening did not arise as anticipated.
- A November 2006 memo announced Van Antwerp would not be transferred; March 2007 interviews selected Wong for the position.
- Van Antwerp, age 50, sued the City alleging ADEA discrimination and Dutch national-origin discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for the City on all counts, and Van Antwerp appealed only the ADEA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether direct evidence shows age discrimination | Van Antwerp asserts direct evidence of animus. | City contends the reason was a legitimate vacancy timing issue. | No direct evidence of discrimination; pretext not shown. |
| Whether the Department’s reason for rescinding was pretext for age bias | Reason was pretext; Little's early retirement misled management. | Reason was a legitimate vacancy timing issue, not pretext. | No substantial evidence that the reason was a lie; no pretext found. |
| Whether Van Antwerp waived indirect method of proof on appeal | Argued indirect method at oral argument. | Waived due to failure to raise in district court. | Indirect method waived; even if considered, lacked merit. |
| Whether evidence about overtime report affected ADEA claim | Overtime report related to adverse action. | Transfer decision remained dispositive; report unnecessary. | Not addressed on the merits since summary judgment affirmed on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fa as v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2008) (requires actual motive presence for ADEA)
- Schuster v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 327 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2003) (pretext requires discriminatory motive influence)
- Sun v. Bd. of Trs., 473 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2007) (circumstantial evidence must point to discriminatory reason)
- Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2003) (circumstantial evidence must point directly to discriminatory reason)
- Venturelli v. ARC Cmty. Servs., Inc., 350 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2003) (direct-method evidence must show animus; pretext needed for direct path)
- Stockwell v. City of Harvey, 597 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2010) (pretext must show lie, not mere error or oversight)
- Hobbs v. City of Chicago, 573 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2009) (no evidence of age-based discrimination; direct claim failure)
- Burks v. Wis. Dep't of Transp., 464 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2006) (arguments not raised in district court are waived on appeal)