Ronald BATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-1500.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Jan. 24, 2013. Decided Aug. 9, 2013.
726 F.3d 951
*
*
*
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Ruth F. Masters, Oak Park, IL, Myriam Z. Kasper, Office of the Corporation Counsel, James F. Botana, Jackson Lewis LLP, Abraham Nathaniel Saiger, Jackson Lewis LLP, Chicago, IL, Myriam Z. Kasper, Ruth F. Masters, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before MANION and WOOD, Circuit Judges, and BARKER, District Judge.*
MANION, Circuit Judge.
Ronald Bates, a black firefighter with the Chicago Fire Department, was demoted one level from his at-will position as a District Chief to a Deputy District Chief position. The Fire Commissioner whо demoted him and the firefighter who replaced him were also black. Nonetheless, Bates claims that his demotion was based on racial discrimination. The district court dismissed several of Bates‘s claims under
I. Facts
Ronald Bates is a black firefighter who joined the Chicago Fire Department in 1977 and gradually rose through the ranks. He was promoted to Lieutenant in 1980, Captain in 1987, Battalion Chief in 1989, and Deputy District Chief in 1998. In 2000, Fire Commissioner James Joyce appointed Bates to one of seven District Chief positions in the Chicago Fire Department. A District Chief is a member of the Fire Commissioner‘s personnel management team and holds an at-will position with no expectation of continued employment. During Bates‘s tenure as a District Chief, Joyce had no comрlaints about Bates‘s job performance. Indeed, Bates instituted a diversity program in his district and was involved in a training program for newly appointed chiefs, and his work appears to have been well received within the Chicago Fire Department.
But Joyce resigned as Fire Commissioner in 2004, and Cortez Trotter became the new Fire Commissioner. Trotter, like Bates, is black. Trotter chose his own managеment team, and on May 24, 2004, he issued a personnel order that contained a list of thirty promotions, demotions, and lateral reassignments for at-will positions in the Chicago Fire Department.1 These appointments consisted of eighteen promotions (eight black, ten non-black); eight demotions (three black, five non-black); and four lateral reassignments (two black, two non-black).2
Bates was one оf the demotions. Trotter demoted him to a Deputy District Chief position in Operation Relief, which is a floating assignment not associated with any particular district. Among the seven District Chiefs, Bates was the only one demoted. The other six District Chiefs were either promoted (one black, four non-black) or laterally reassigned (one non-black).
Trotter promoted Nicholas Russell to Bates‘s District Chief pоsition, and like Bates and Trotter, Russell was also black. Russell had started working with the Chicago Fire Department just a few years after Trotter began working there, and Russell had been a Battalion Chief when
Bates worked in his new Deputy District Chief position for a few months, then took a year-long medical leave. At the end of his leave, Bates was unable to continue his work, and he retired from the Chicago Fire Department on November 13, 2005. On March 16, 2005, during his medical leave, Bates filed a pro se complaint, which he subsequently amended with the assistance of counsel on September 27, 2005. The amended complaint contained four counts alleging that Bates‘s demotion had been motivated by racial discrimination. It named Joyce, Trotter, and two District Chiefs as defendants in their individual capacities and as agents of the City of Chicago in their official capacities. Bates sued Trotter because Trotter had made the decision to demote him, and Bates also sued Joyce and two District Chiefs because they had allegedly influenced Trotter‘s decision. Count I was a Title VII claim against the City of Chicago, Count II was a
The district court ultimately resolved all counts in favor of the defendants. The court dismissed Counts II and III under
II. Discussion
We first examine whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Count I in favor of the City of Chicago and on Counts II and III in favor of Trotter. We then examine whether the district court erred in dismissing Counts II and III against the other defendants under Rule 12(b)(6).3
A. Claims Resolved on Summary Judgment
Bates alleges that Trotter and the City of Chicago demoted him because of racial discrimination that violated Title VII (Count I),
Bates argues that he has presented sufficient evidence of racial discrimination to survive summary judgment under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).4 Under the McDon-
The district court concluded that Bates could not establish a prima facie case because he failed to prove the fourth McDоnnell Douglas element: whether Bates was treated worse than similarly situated firefighters who were not black. We have held that “[t]he similarly situated inquiry is a flexible, common-sense one that asks, at bottom, whether ‘there are enough common factors ... to allow for a meaningful comparison in order to divine whether intentional discrimination was at play.‘” Henry v. Jones, 507 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir.2007) (quoting Barricks v. Eli Lilly & Co., 481 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir.2007)). “[T]he comparator must still be similar enough ‘to eliminate confounding variables, such as differing roles, performance histories, or decision-making personnel, [so as to] isolate the critical independent variable: complaints about discrimination.‘” Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 526 F.3d 1054, 1061 (7th Cir.2008) (quoting Humphries v. CBOCS West, Inc., 474 F.3d 387, 405 (7th Cir.2007)).
We agree with the district court that Bates failed to prove the “similarly situated” element because “the numbers do not support the claim of race discrimination.” Across the board, Trotter‘s promotions, demotions, and lateral transfers did not demonstrate any clear racial bias. Of the eight demotions, five were for non-black firefighters, which suggests that Trotter demoted both black and non-black firefighters without regard to race. Bates therefore lacks evidence that he was treated worse than similarly situated firefighters. See Bush v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 990 F.2d 928, 931 (7th Cir.1993) (“[A] pattern, in which blacks sometimes do better than whites and sometimes do worse, being random with respect to race, is not evidence of racial discrimination.“).
Bates contends that we should limit our “similarly situated” comparison to the appointments of the other six District Chiefs. Of the seven District Chiefs, Bates was the only one demoted. The other six District Chiefs had either been promoted (one black, four non-black) or laterally reassigned (one non-black). But we see no need to exclude Trotter‘s other appointments from our analysis. Trotter made all thirty appointments in the same personnel order, and they consisted of a comprehensive scheme to change the leadership in the at-will positions within the Chicago Fire Department. And if we were to scrutinize the District Chief comparisons more closely, we would note that the other District Chiefs had qualifications and experiences that distinguished them from Bates. For example, Trotter promoted District Chief James Kehoe to a position that Kehoe had held under a former Commissioner. Bates, however, had never held a rank higher than District Chief. Trotter also promoted District Chief William Donohue because Donohue had demonstrated an aggressive management style while handling
Even if Bates were able to satisfy the “similarly situated” element and establish a prima facie casе, Trotter asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to explain his decision to demote Bates. Trotter testified during a deposition that he had demoted Bates because Bates‘s management style did not align with his own:
In looking at the goals and looking at my needs for the Fire Department, specifically [Bates‘s] District, I felt that the person that I was appointing was better able to carry out my goals and reflect my management style....
... I have an aggressive management style. I look for high energy, enthusiasm. I look for people that are—that appear, at least to me, to be engaged in what they‘re doing.
When asked specifically about Bates, Trotter testified that he remembered “not being impressed by the overall demeanor or the enthusiasm that I saw.” We have readily accepted such concerns about an employee‘s performance and leadership skills “as legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons; indeed, they are a staple of employer responses in these situations.” Sattar v. Motorola, Inc., 138 F.3d 1164, 1170 (7th Cir.1998).
Bates would then have to show that Trotter‘s reason for Bates‘s demotion was merely a pretext. To show pretext, a plaintiff “must identify such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, or contradictions in [the defendant‘s] proffered reasons that a reasonable person could find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that [the defendant] did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.” Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781, 792 (7th Cir.2007). A plaintiff can do this by showing that the defendant‘s reason for the adverse employment action (1) had no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the adverse emрloyment action; or (3) was insufficient to motivate the action. Wells v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 289 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir.2002). “The focus of a pretext inquiry is whether the employer‘s stated reason was honest, not whether it was accurate, wise, or well-considered.” Stewart v. Henderson, 207 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir.2000).
Bates attempts to establish pretext by arguing that Trotter‘s reason for his demotion had no basis in fact. First, Bates claims that Trotter changed his reason for the demotion, and Bates argues that this аlleged inconsistency demonstrates the unreliability of Trotter‘s explanation. Bates claims that Trotter testified that Bates was a “good fit” for Trotter‘s management team in his second deposition, even though Trotter had previously testified that Bates was not a “good fit” in his first deposition. But Trotter‘s statements did not create an inconsistency in his position; they merely reflected Trotter‘s desire to keеp Bates within his management team, but not at the level of a District Chief. Bates further argues that his work performance and management skills could not have been Trotter‘s reason for the demotion because, even though Trotter demoted Bates, Trotter still retained Bates in an at-will position and invited him to a management retreat. But again, Trotter‘s actions simply demonstrated that Trotter wanted tо keep Bates in his management team, but not as a District Chief.
Second, Bates argues that Trotter‘s reason for his demotion is based on factual
Finally, Bates argues that we should not infer that Trotter opposes racial discrimination simply because he is black, and therefore would not discriminate against another black firefighter. Although it is possible for employers to discriminate аgainst members of their own race, Bates provided no evidence that Trotter was racially biased against black firefighters. Instead, the record shows that Trotter promoted many black firefighters to at-will positions in the Chicago Fire Department. He promoted eight black firefighters in the personnel order dated May 24, 2004, and he increased the number of black District Chiefs from two to three. Indeed, Trotter replaced Bates with Russell, who was also a black firefighter. And not only did Russell and Bates share the same race, Russell had been the president of the African American Firefighters League for more than a decade. Trotter was well aware of Russell‘s advocacy for the African American Firefighters League, and Trotter and Russell had even been on a television show together and discussed Russell‘s work against racial discrimination. Russell‘s activism is likely what Trotter referred to as the “high energy [and] enthusiasm” that the Fire Department needed “to carry out [his] goals and reflect [his] management style.” Therefore, we affirm the district court‘s ruling that Bates failed to establish a prima facie case, and even if Bates were able to do so, he would be unable to show that Trotter‘s reason for Bates‘s demotion was merely pretext.
B. Dismissed Claims
Bates further alleges that “Trotter was influenced by” Joyce and two District Chiefs, and that Trotter demoted Bates as a result of this influence. The amended complaint therefore named Joyce and the two District Chiefs as defendants to the
But Bates denies that he is invoking the “cat‘s paw” theory of liability. The amended complaint, however, specifically alleged that “Trotter was influenced by” Joyce and two District Chiefs, which is a classic example of a “cat‘s paw” theory of liability. Joyce and the two District Chiefs lacked the authority to demote Batеs on their own, and the amended complaint even conceded that only “Defendant Trotter made the decision to demote Bates.” Therefore, the amended complaint alleged a theory of “cat‘s paw” liability, but Bates has since waived that theory.5
But even if Bates had not waived his claims against Joyce and the two District Chiefs, and even if the district court had erred by dismissing the
III. Conclusion
The district court correctly determined that Bates was unable to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, and evеn if he could establish such a case, Bates would be unable to show that Trotter‘s reason for Bates‘s demotion was merely pretext. Additionally, the district court correctly dismissed the