*2 RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. of- worked correctional
Faye Oest as of Cor- Department Illinois ficer for the until she was (“Department”) rections pro- Department’s under the discharged action, In this discipline system. gressive Department violated alleges that the Act of Rights the Civil Title ofVII it seq., § dis- 2000e et 42 U.S.C. against criminated her on the basis of sex such as oral reprimands; or written addi- discharged retaliation for tional precipitate violations suspensions of a eventually her earlier with the termination. Employment Opportunity Equal Commis- During period of employment at the (“EEOC”). grant- sion The district court camp, Ms. consistently received nega- *3 summary judgment Depart- ed for the _ performance tive evaluations. She also
ment. For the reasons set forth in the given reprimands was many and suspen- following opinion, we affirm violating sions for Department’s stan- of the district court. dards of conduct. Keeping in mind the importance temporal of the relationship of
I the various in employ- events Ms. Oest’s history, ment we shall chronicle princi- BACKGROUND pal leading incidents to Ms. Oest’s dis- A. charge. began working Depart-
Ms. Oest for the a January ment as correctional officer in prior Events of EEOC employed 1992. She was at the Hanna Illinois, City Camp City, Work in Hanna 1992, In June gave Oest a co-worker discharge until her for cause in November an oversized “joke” condom as a and later January effective received a reprimand written from Captain All correctional supervised officers are Reynolds for this action. During the same and, them, by lieutenants captains. above period, July Captain Reynolds Pelphrey Lieutenants and Holley always gave reprimand her an oral for miscount- Oest; supervised Ms. the supervising cap- ing inmates. Ms. Oest was required Captain tain Reynolds, varied. in his role July to account for the number of sick officer, as many internal affairs conducted used, days she though had even she had a investigations into Ms. Oest’s al- doctor’s statement all for but one of the misconduct,
leged supervised as well as days taken. during probationary period her her when In January Ms. Oest received began she first her with the counseling after Pelphrey Lieutenant Department. role, In this latter he con- up failing wrote her for to confiscate a ducted final probationary her evaluation keys. visitor’s car Ms. Oest contends that and recommended that Ms. Oest not be the visitor keys did not have the in her officer, certified as a correctional the first possession when she was In searched. time he ever had made such a recommen- May Captain Roach asked Ms. Oest problematic dation. He found Ms. Oest’s to have an cleaning assign- inmate redo a attendance, inmates, her miscounts of ment that supervised, request she had difficulty relating her to and following the apparently not given other correctional Department orders of staff. The warden’s officers. office, however, Captain instructed Reyn- olds to negative remove his conclusion discipline Ms. Oest was next referred for
from Ms. Oest’s evaluation. Pelphrey Lieutenant in November 1993 failing present timely on a basis a
B. slip physician from concerning a medi- Department The progressive utilizes a cal restriction. Ms. Oest claims that she system discipline under manage- one-day suspension which received a in- for the fraction, employs ment various Department measures correc- in- although records discipline tion and as reprimand infractions accrue. dicate that a written process measures, The starts with dispensed. lesser day; camp’s gate watching the main received Ms. Oest January permitted conducting the search outside allegedly ignor- suspension for
three-day at the same time. gate search 1993 to watch December ing request been Further, similarly was referred had Ms. Oest a male officer a female visitor. Barclay, a co- rain. in the Officer inmates after to search ordered had refused worker, that she once reported Pelphrey that Lieutenant Oest claims to search Holley’s order many inmates she Lieutenant how asked her did maintains that Ms. Oest visitor.1 “violent- that he became down and shaken nor was she to search disobey an order responded that she upset” ly to do so. a direct order given ever requested if he had kept have count would Dep. at 86. To knowl- R. it. 24, 1994,2 request- January On were asked the no male officers edge, “turnaround,” request ed a four-hour *4 question. same ac- of a shift substitute beginning time for days or other off crued sick absence from took a of Ms. Oest leave request The period. work scheduled During peri- this July 1994. until March if ten always, granted usually, but not 21, 1994, od, charge she filed a on June Although oth- available. other officers are EEOC, Depart- that the alleging with the day in present on the er officers were be- against her had discriminated ment Pelphrey denied Ms. question, Lieutenant her sex. cause of however, did, Ms. Oest request. Oest’s on other turnarounds occasions. receive of EEOC 2. Events after offi- that various also submits Ms. Oest her to see repeatedly requested cers a. received, on numerous occa- she badge; sions, display- counseling Sisson, sessions for not internal affairs in- Lieutenant male her coat. Her badge ing investigate Ms. vestigator, ássigned was claims, were similar- counterparts, complaint. He interviewed EEOC their they omitted ly disciplined when Holley and Lieutenants Captain Reynolds work attire. Ms. Oest badges others, from their in among December Pelphrey, and others, she, was but not alleges also that Lieutenants Hol- meetings, In those proper if she had repeatedly asked expressed concern that ley Pelphrey and coat. some stripes on her Yet number of board Department’s employee review types queries of exists that these the disci- sufficiently considered had not call, super- role when the often occurred at they had submitted re- plinary referrals Oest not see the shorter Ms. visors could Sisson re- garding Ms. Oest. Lieutenant officers. standing taller correctional behind sponded that better “documentation” with the neces- provide would board alleges other instances recommen- sary information assess discriminatory She contends treatment. Dep. R. Sisson He dations. initiating criticized for that she was often packages that their referral noted super- consulting assignments without her information, often omitted board relevant times, repri- At she was visors. other Lieutenant Sisson testimony, or evidence. asking lack of initiative and manded for therefore, that Lieutenants suggested, men- questions. Ms. Oest also many too Pelphrey submit more com- and Holley required once to search that she tions was remedy these indicates, in the future to plete reports The record in the inmates rain. procedure.” in Id. at 42. “shortcomings however, responsible for Oest was in affidavit state- alleges Barclay later submits that Officer 1. Ms. Oest undisputed incident that this ment facts questioned repudiated this statement January deposition, 1994. In her in occurred however, president. the union as November 1994. the date is listed During period, day suspension. Oest, this two of the lieuten- According to Ms. to the Captain ants wrote letters internal affairs Gossett redoing knew she was in division which set forth their views given permission roster and had to do performance. Lieutenant on Ms. Oest’s so. Pelphrey wrote letter late 1994 or September Also in Ms. Oest was 1995 in which he early alleged Ms.' referred for discipline by Lieutenant Pel- signs instability Oest showed of mental Ward; phrey Captain October, “stalking” supervisors. and was R. was ten-day suspension issued a per- Ex. at 2. Lieutenant Pelphrey C wrote that mitting the unauthorized movement of an employee
the “environment that this [Ms. inmate. nothing frighten- Oest] creates is less than occurred, Three additional events letter, In that ing.” Id. Lieutenant Pel- succession, close immediately prior to Ms. phrey meeting also describes a that took First, Oest’s termination. in September 27, 1994, place on October at which Lieu- 1995, she charged telling inmate Holley tenant stated Lieutenant Pel- Manuel Cruz as he exited the shower that phrey effectively super- and he “could not he had “nice[-]looking legs.” R. Ex. A. [Ms. vise under the constant threat Oest] Although Ms. Oest denies that she made R. legal action.” Ex. C at 1. Accord- statement, she received a thirty-day letter, Pelphrey’s to Lieutenant *5 suspension Captain after Reynolds initi- statement by was “followed either she goes ated an internal affairs investigation. go.” Holley Id. Lieutenant also Captain Reynolds had an received inmate a authored memo to internal in affairs request slip detailing incident, the alleged early January questioned 1995. He it, investigated and then referred the mat- passed whether Ms. Oest had her agility ter an employee for review hearing after supervisors’ test and wrote that the “au- consulting superior with a officer. Curi- thority supervisory skills have been however, ously, Barclay Officer filled out by upper management.” emasculated R. request slip, the forging Cruz’s in- name 31, Ex. D at 2. own,
stead of in signing his contravention b. Department policy. Barclay of Officer was action; disciplined although this to Subsequent Ms. Oest’s Captain Reynolds had heard rumors that complaint, EEOC she up was written Cruz had request slip, not authored the infractions, various minor but at least two Captain Reynolds did not discover until of reports those were withdrawn. In Feb- “years Barclay after the fact” that 1995, ruary Captain up Gossett wrote Ms. 31, submitted it instead of Reyn- Cruz. R. van, for insufficiently cleaning a an Dep. olds infraction for which she received a three- day suspension in March. Ms. Oest Next, Oest, in Depart- violation of claims, however, that the vehicle did not rules, ment commented in October 1995 to need further cleaning. fellow staff disciplin- and inmates about a (Ms. ary involving matter her husband. step
Ms. Oest’s increase was withheld Oest’s husband correctional offi- Department objectives for failure to meet cer at facility.) Captain Reyn- the same 1, 1995, April on and she took various and, olds reprimand, issued her written April leaves of absence from to July 1995. following employee an hearing, review the Pelphrey Lieutenant issued Ms. Oest a hearing progressive officer concluded that reprimand September written in 1995 for imposed. should be redoing personal computer roster on her at in policy prohibit- Oest, home contravention of alleged It was further in removal of order, confidential information violation of a direct discussed from the work site. She received a seven- Cruz investigation into specific showing “set[ting] forth facts Octo- legs” comment late
“nice[-]looking
Fed.
issue for trial.”
allegedly
genuine
there is a
specifically,
1995. More
ber
56(e).
him
reports
asked
R.Civ.P.
showed Cruz
admits
Ms. Oest
his statement.
change
only
“material”
disputes are
Factual
twice but denies
spoke with Cruz
they “might affect
outcome
talk to him. After
not to
she was ordered
law.”
governing
suit under
incident
an
investigation prompted
an
—
Inc.,
Lobby,
477 U.S.
Liberty
Anderson
Pel-
by Lieutenant
report
submitted
242, 248,
91 L.Ed.2d
106 S.Ct.
recommended
Reynolds
phrey Captain
—
(1986). Thus,
fails
nonmoving party
if the
employee
be referred for
that Ms. Oest
showing on
essen
to make a sufficient
he
con-
hearing, a decision made
review
case,
moving party
of her
tial element
superinten-
Department’s
junction with
a matter of law
as
is entitled
assistant warden. Ms.
dent and
con
complete
proof
“a
because
failure
was
suspension for the comment
thirty-day
[non-
element of the
an essential
cerning
pend-
suspension
changed
thirty-day
to a
all oth
case
renders
necessarily
movant’s]
discharged
ing discharge. Ms. Oest
Celotex, 477
immaterial.”
U.S.
er facts
5, 1995, effective
for cause on November
disputes are
Factual
S.Ct. 2548.
pursuant
Depart-
January
“if
is such that
“genuine”
disciplinary policy.
progressive
ment’s
a verdict
jury could return
a reasonable
right
letter
received
sue
Lobby, 477
Liberty
[nonmovant].”
for the
July
on
1997. She
from the EEOC
The evidence
611
Robin,
In
inquiry.
crucial to the
exam-
The
Discrimination Claim
Sex
B.
ple, derogatory
concerning
remarks
employer
an
prohibits
Title VII
age
plaintiffs
years
had been made two
treating
employee
favorably
less
from
held, therefore,
prior
discharge.
his
We
employment
to conditions of
could
these utterances
not be consid-
42
of her
sex. See
U.S.C.
because
ered direct
evidence
discrimination.
2000e-2(a)(l).
a
prevail
§
To
on Title VII
id. at
long
period
See
1089. A
time
be-
claim, plaintiff
treatment
a
must
disparate
tween a
remark and
adverse employ-
victim of intention
establish
she is the
ment action can
defeat
inference of a
Jackson v.
al discrimination. See
E.J.
“causal nexus
between
remark and
(7th
Corp., 176
982
Cir.
Brach
F.3d
decision
discharge.”
Geier v. Medtron-
1999).
ic, Inc.,
(7th Cir.1996)
242
F.3d
action,
plaintiff may
In Title VII
(discounting
of bad intent
at the summary
establish discrimination
occurred a full
before
year
the adverse
either the
judgment stage through
“direct”
action). Thus, if
remarks
are not “con-
Jackson,
“indirect”
See
method.
176 temporaneous
discharge
with the
or caus-
examine this case
F.3d
We shall
ally
discharge
related to the
decision mak-
methodologies.
under both
process,”
insufficient to
are
create
material,
triable
issue of
fact regarding
discrimination.
Id.
case
first examine this
under the so-
We
We also have considered the context in
“direct” method. Under this meth
called
which the remark was made to be a rele-
odology,
plaintiff
must establish her
determining
vant factor in
causality.
through
“thoroughly
convention
case
Robin,
example,
the court dismissed
approach
“putting
enough
evi
al”
allegedly discriminatory
remarks as
dence,
or,
commonly,
whether direct
more
“random office banter” and “conversational
circumstantial,
to create
triable issue of
in a
jabs
setting.”
social
camp, that conclusion facie case of sex dis prima establishes the re- importantly, More superiors. his (1) was a by showing crimination prior to years four made mark was almost (2) class; she was protected of a member years prior and two Oest’s termination Ms. legitimate busi meeting employer’s Further, com- suspension. first to an ad suffered expectations; ness the decision-mak- was not related ment action; and employment verse to Ms. ing process similarly situated em treated employer Reyn- Although Captain continued status. favorably. more the class ployees outside into the investigation did conduct olds Auto., Inc., Borg-Warner v. Simpson See statement, he did not “nice[-]looking legs” Cir.1999). (7th If 876 196 F.3d em- to terminate her the decision make prima this facie plaintiff fails establish matter merely referred the He ployment. to sum case, employer is entitled a hear- board for employee review the court’s even without mary judgment ing. steps of the two other reaching the do not believe Accordingly, we Douglas analysis em McDonnell —the of discrimination can sustain a Oest nondis articulating legitimate, ployer’s the direct method. under action and the criminatory reason for its that the to demonstrate plaintiffs burden was instead purported legitimate reason See unlawful discrimination. pretext for has whether next examine We 802-04, at Douglas, 411 U.S. McDonnell famil- case under the a triable established prima parts Two 93 S.Ct. burden-shifting approach. indirect iar at here.3 We shall facie are issue case usually are “careful employers Because in turn. address each indicating gun remarks smoking offer discrimination,” burden- intentional a. in McDonnell shifting test first elucidated Only resulting those ad acts 792, 802, Green, v. 411 U.S. Douglas Corp. cognizable employment are verse actions (1973), pro- L.Ed.2d 668 36 93 S.Ct. See, e.g., Simpson, Title VII. 196 under indirect evi- evaluating a means of vides have Although we defined F.3d at 876. summary at the of discrimination dence “quite actions broad adverse Robin, 200 F.3d stage. Univ., 89 F.3d ly,” v. Ball State Smart method, plaintiff the indirect (7th Under Cir.1996), actions must be 441 adverse of dis- prima facie case actionable, establish must mean materially adverse to be Douglas, 411 McDonnell See crimination. or an than a “mere inconvenience ing more 1817; Bekker see also Crady job responsibilities.” S.Ct. U.S. alteration Plan, Inc., Co., Trust Liberty Humana Health Nat’l Bank & v. Cir.2000). (7th Cir.1993). (7th employer 132, 136 example, If the For F.2d *8 be nondiscriminatory “materially change might for adverse in reason offers then action, employment, must of plaintiff by the a termination employment dicated explanation by wage evidenced a decrease such an demotion evidence that submit title, a mate-. Bellaver, salary, distinguished a less 200 F.3d at or pretextual. See is benefits, significantly diminish- rial of loss 493. Douglas test flexi- apply the McDonnell correctly that the must held The district court legiti employer’s employee that she was prong, meeting bly; an concedes second neces expectations, was employer’s expectations not meeting mate business but not judging analysis; people sary to the harshly more than that she was treated claims she ac performance were the same Oest's rule-breakers, “little sense in it other makes discriminating against See her. cused of whether she was meet- to discuss this context Group, F.3d 182 v. Technical Flores expectations”). Preferred employer’s reasonable Cir.1999) 512, (7th (noting courts 515
613 (7th Cir.1998) (“Absent responsibilities, ed material other indi- 556 tangible some particular to a might unique job ces that be consequence accompanying rep [the] noted, however, rimands, situation.” Id. We have we decline to broaden the defi an everything that “not makes em- nition of employment adverse action to an actionable ployee unhappy them.”). is adverse include With the benefit of Otherwise, action. minor and even trivial that, case, hindsight, it can be said this ‘an ... employment employee actions that reprimand each oral or written brought not like would form the of a did basis Ms. Oest closer to termination. Such a ” Smart, discrimination 89 at suit.’ F.3d course was not an consequence inevitable (citation omitted). 441 Because “adverse every reprimand, however; job-related of many shapes actions can come in and criticism can prompt employee to im sizes,” Indiana, v. Knox State 93 F.3d prove performance and thus lead to a (7th Cir.1996), it important 1334 is to new and more constructive employment particular consider the factual details of Moreover, relationship. Ms. Oest has not analyzing each situation when whether an pointed immediate consequence of material, Bryson adverse action is see v. reprimands, ineligibility such as (7th Univ., Chicago State 96 F.3d 916 job promotion, benefits like transfer to a Cir.1996). location, favorable or an in advantageous responsibilities. crease in Thomsen v. Cf. It undisputed that Ms. Oest’s Romeis, (7th 198 F.3d 1028 Cir. suspensions and ultimate termination are 2000) (holding reprimands employment adverse actions. Yet Ms. plaintiff not, might received as Oest mentions several other incidents that asserted, plaintiff lead to future do not employment constitute adverse ac ability and affect his compete pro instance, tions under our case law. For motions and concluding that con “[t]hese points negative perfor Oest various sequences, individually considered either received, but, mance evaluations that she conjunction other, or in appear with each Smart, perfor we held that unfavorable speculative”). to be somewhat mance evaluations alone did not constitute employment adverse actions. See id. at course, Of even if the negative perfor- 442; see v. City Chicago, also Silk 194 cannot, reprimands mance evaluations or (7th Cir.1999). F.3d 801-03 alone, standing state a claim of discrimina- tion, they can constitute relevant evidence Nor do we believe that the oral or of discrimination to other em- reprimands by written received Ms. ployment Department’s clearly actions that are adverse progressive under the disci considered, pline system employment actions under can be on this statute.4 record, Sweeney, See 149 impheating sufficiently “tangi (explaining as F.3d job consequences” although negative ble may constitute an in evaluations dependent actions, liability basis of under Title constitute adverse West, Sweeney VII. See they F.3d could be used as discrimi- principles permit by employer Similar time-barred duct that is lime-barred is entirely appropriate claims to be considered as evidence of nevertheless evidence to other help prove timely Specifically, although claim discrimination. mat- based subse- quent discriminatory er.”); employ- subject complaint ters that are conduct not the of a Sys., see also Kusak v. Ameritech prescribed filed within the time limit are not Info. Inc., (7th Cir.1996) (same). themselves, actionable in can constitute *9 Therefore, relevant evidence of discrimination with re- even those instances that the De- (an spect complaint partment other actions for which a claims to be time-barred issue decide) brought applicable was within the time limi- we need not could be relevant evi- tation. See discriminatory respect Mathewson National Automatic dence intent with Co., (7th Cir.1986) Tool ("[E]vidence clearly 807 F.2d 91 the other actions that are not time- discriminatory of earlier con- barred. 614 circumstances); movement of and the unauthorized see the van right
nation under inmate, no evi- has offered Ms. Oest Smart, 442.5 F.3d at also had committed any that male officer dence b. respect to the infraction. With a similar confidential material bring not to order determined court The district home, that a can do is claim the best she that she had not demonstrated Ms. Oest infraction committed an male officer had differently than a similar any was treated mate- of confidential to the misuse agree. similar employee. We situated male ly disciplined. This occur- was not support the conclusion rial but does not The record rence, however, differ is not within Ms. Oest’s camp treated her that the officials thus, as the dis- knowledge officer. and ently personal than a male corrections noted, satisfy her evi- cannot trict court various incidents turn to the When dentiary burden. complains, we find Ms. Oest about which conclusory assertions only her own comparison other bases of Ms. Oest’s treated differ counterparts male were infirmities. For exam- from similar suffer en previously upheld have ently. We reprimand- ple, maintains that she was against a Title summary judgment try of while male the condom incident ed for only his presented has plaintiff who VII jokes sexual officers who made uncorroborated, conclusory state own were not disci- brought pornography co-workers similarly situated ments noted, court howev- plined. As the district See, Bragg differently. e.g., treated were er, beyond pos- Oest’s conduct went Ms. Transp. Corp., 164 F.3d v. Navistar Int’l item. She had session of sex-related (7th Cir.1998); Cowan v. Glen he her husband after taken the item from Servs., Inc., brook Sec. premis- to remove it from the was ordered (7th Cir.1997). brought the only It was after Ms. Oest es. suspension was initiated Ms. Oest’s first Department grounds that condom back on refused to Holley when she Lieutenant rep- also punished. was Ms. Oest was At the time search a female visitor. of her working rimanded for violation Oest, on her lunch although Ms. question, not, however, does doctor’s orders. She break, only female officer avail- was the any that her male coun- present disparate treatment be- claims able. She worked in contravention of terparts also did not Captain cause Roach but not disci- instructions were physician’s loudly complained male officer who plined. Notably, to search a visitor. when asked however, male officer did not refuse Further, submits that she was male nor was the undertake search car disciplined for the failure to remove officer the available officer admits that she had keys from a visitor but Thus, cannot be char- appropriate sex. he similarly officer was been told that a male Ms. similarly acterized as situated to Oest. argues that she was disciplined. She her matter of differently regarding treated suspended failing for also was dress; counseled for specifically, she was clean, failing to ensure that van was Yet badge on her coat. having comply regarding with written orders Oest, present evidence home, again, does not taken confidential information without their male officers were found the unauthorized movement allowing disciplined. badges and not cleaning to the an inmate. With request granted on other occasions. the denial of her 5. Ms. Oest contends that event, that, depending on the we note request evidence of discrimina- turnaround working partic- aon rou- number of other officers this rather tion. We do not believe that day, similarly did not al- male officers scheduling ular tine issue can be considered action, they requested. ways the turnarounds especially receive since adverse *10 Indeed, shortcomings the same are evi- denee that any male officer had committed dent with to the other incidents to three such infractions in analogously points which Ms. Oest as evidence of dis- period short yet time and escaped crimination, such as the demand that she discipline. days
account for sick
used. Ms.
has
assertions,
conclusory
offered
her own
C. The Retaliation Claim
evidence,
specific
any
and not
male
The district court also entered summary
officer had committed conduct similar to
Department
on Ms.
any similarly
hers or that
situated officer
Oest’s retaliatory discharge claim. It held
favorably.
was treated more
As we have
that Ms.
prove
Oest had failed to
a causal
noted,
generalities
such uncorroborated
connection between her
complaint
EEOC
support
are insufficient
a Title VII
and her termination. The court found dis-
See,
377;
e.g., Bragg,
claim.
at
positive
lapses
the time
that had occurred
Cowan,
616 presented the circumstances Under plaintiff a when is established
of retaliation court was (1) here, that the district protected we believe engaged shows VII; suffered delay Title that the activity under in its estimation correct subsequent action jury an a verdict of support adverse to too attenuated a there exists and participation; to her filed her EEOC retaliation. em- the adverse between causal connection 1994; disciplin the next complaint June participation and her action ployment event, failure to clean alleged ary Smart, 89 F.3d activity. See protected van, in Febru eight months later occurred ary 1995. as this evaluating claims such argument is that strongest Ms. Oest’s heavily temporal one, relied we have in a calcu- engaging supervisors were retaliation analyzing proximity against her. to a case lated effort build time claims; a “substantial specifically, surrounding the circumstances Some of of causal ... counter-evidence lapse is care- warrant our alleged infractions Johnson, F.3d 70 connection.” example, that Officer scrutiny; ful however, held, “[sjpecu also have We on the Barclay forged the inmate’s name alone” suspicious timing based on lation Pelphrey slip; that Lieutenants request inference of support a reasonable does not more to document Holley and were told link, retaliation; re again, a causal behavior; that the extensively Oest’s USA, Inc., v. Exxon Coal Sauzek quired. that their recom- upset were supervisors Cir.2000). (7th 913, A me F.3d 918 202 were be- regarding Ms. Oest mendations ill time frame would chanistically applied offi- that the same few ignored; and faithful to the obligation to be serve our Oest’s a in most of Ms. cers had hand The facts purpose of Title VII. legislative deserving of close scruti- discipline. Also necessarily of each case circumstances Holley’s and Pel- ny are Lieutenants whether to determine must be evaluated jury Ms. Oest’s long suggesting letters permit phrey’s an interval is too adverse em rationally that an and in- undermining discipline determine charge was employee’s is hnked to ployment action goes go.” or we timating that “either she cau complaint.8 The of inference earlier instances, taken alone none these Yet of between the as the time sation weakens support jury verdict together, would adverse ac expression and the protected claim. on the retaliation in Ms. Oest’s favor increases, proof and then “additional tion to link the no evidence Ms. Oest offers necessary.” Davidson nexus is of causal signature on the forgery of the inmate’s Clinic, Ltd., 499, 511 F.3d v. 133 Midelfort incident, to an ar- complaint, disturbing Cir.1998). (7th Thus, permitted have underlying event—her gument proceed in the face charges to retaliation remark —did oc- “nice[-]looking legs” cir only*when additional long of intervals cata- The factors cur. remainder employ cumstances demonstrate that from the internal loged emerged above See might legitimate. not be er’s acts Department the conduct of investigation of Dep’t Transp., 92 McKenzie v. Illinois officials, (7th Cir.1996). in the of Ms. 473, wake undertaken F.3d 485 Clinic, months, v. protected five Davidson one-year lapse between the ex see 8. A Midelfort termination, (7th Cir.1998); Ltd., nearly employee’s pression and the 133 511 F.3d alone, months, standing to be too has been determined Mobile v. Ameritech six see Juarez discrimina (7th to raise an inference of Communications, Inc., attenuated 321 957 F.2d Co., 221 Gooding Paluck v. Rubber tion. See months, Cir.1992); eight see Adusumilli (7th Cir.2000). Intervals of 1010 F.3d (7th City Chicago, 363 164 F.3d v. USA, months, v. Exxon Coal see three Sauzek Cir.1998), similarly have been determined Cir.2000); Inc., (7th 918-19 retalia- long support an inference of be too months, Express Filipovic K & R see four tion. Cir.1999); (7th Inc., Sys., F.3d charge. of the EEOC The plaint alleged and the retaliatory actions investigating suggestion by Department officer’s that the is insufficient itself *12 investigation support However, under should have a causal link. officers Oest points that, kept hardly records is evidence of to other together better evidence retaliation. The remarks of the officers with the reasonable may inferences that be evidence, investigation indicating under that either drawn from the my judg- is in leave, they although had to ment sufficient to jury question raise a on intemperate, made in defense of the the issue of were causation. that disciplinary they actions had taken theory of Oest’s causation focuses on the supervisor’s protestation A against her. lapse time supervisors’ between her dis- authority by that his was undermined alle- complaint cussion about her EEOC with gations management practices that his an internal investigator, affairs and the discriminatory were does little to establish beginning of the retaliatory actions she Moreover, retaliation. these remarks alleges. The interview between Lieuten- by responsible
were not made those Pelphrey ants and Holley and the internal deciding Ms. Oest’s nor status investigator affairs occurred in December is there indication that these officers days interview, 1994. Within of that Pel- played part in the final decision dis- phrey and Holley authored letters critical her, a many decision made months of Oest. Less than a month after let- the importantly, discharge later.9 Most ters, disciplined Oest was for the van inci- came after Ms. Oest committed three dent. Further discipline incidents of fol- additional infractions within a time short lowed, which, after Oest took time off in frame. summer, up through continued record, scrutiny After close of the discharge. time of her prop- must conclude that the district court theory depends Oest’s of causation erly simply determined that the evidence assumptions: two Pelphrey, Hol- support jury finding would not of retalia- ley, supervisors and her other first learned tion. they of Oest’s EEOC claim when were by interviewed the internal affairs investi- Conclusion gator; and supervisor who judgment Accordingly, of the district disciplined first her after she filed her court is affirmed. EEOC claim knew she had filed the claim despite the fact that he was not inter-
Affirmed. Still, viewed internal affairs.1 there is WILLIAMS, Judge, Circuit dissenting contradicting assump- no evidence 'these tions, part. summary pur- and for poses, Oest is entitled to favorable infer- I concur in the majority’s conclusion points. ences on both of these provided that Oest has not sufficient direct support or circumstantial evidence to I provided Because think that Oest has claim of I agree discrimination. with sufficient would allow a rea- that, majority jury to Oest’s sonable to find in her favor on the claim, retaliation eight-month time issue of whether the 1995 incidents were lapse causally between the June 1994 EEOC com- protected connected to her ex- Although participated timing supervisors' the officers knowledge in the re- 1. The of her porting investigating principal complaint important EEOC because leading discharge, events to Ms. Oest’s their suspensions discharge product are a apparently referring role was limited to reported by supervisors, of incidents even employee matters review board. The say if did not have final on the hearing officer made the ultimate decision to imposed. discharge Ms. Oest. REVERSEthe court’s I would
pression, re- judgment on Oest’s summary
grant of pro- further RemaND claim and
taliation extent, respectfully I
ceedings, and to
dissent. *13 America, STATES
UNITED
Plaintiff-Appellee, WESTMORELAND,
Guy J.
Defendant-Appellant. 99-1491, 00-1348.
Nos. Appeals,
United States Court Circuit.
Seventh Sept.
Argued 15, 2001.
Decided Feb. Suggestion Rehearing
Rehearing and 9, 2001. April
En Banc Denied