Bordelon v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
811 F.3d 984 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To survive summary judgment on an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim using a 'cat's paw' theory, a plaintiff must present specific, admissible evidence that the biased supervisor harbored discriminatory animus; conclusory statements, ambiguous remarks, and inadmissible hearsay are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Facts:
- Lionel Bordelon, age 63, was the long-tenured Principal of Kozminski Community Academy.
- In October 2009, Dr. Judith Coates became Bordelon's supervisor and allegedly inherited a list of 'older black principals to be disciplined,' which included Bordelon.
- In November 2010, Coates initiated a pre-discipline hearing against Bordelon for insubordination, and in December 2010, she issued him a 'needs improvement' performance evaluation, citing the school's declining test scores.
- At a December 2010 meeting of the Local School Council (Council), the body responsible for renewing principal contracts, Coates suggested that it was 'time for [Bordelon] to give it up.'
- On December 29, 2010, Coates reassigned Bordelon to home with full pay pending an investigation into alleged misconduct related to asbestos, purchasing irregularities, and computer tampering.
- On January 28, 2011, the Council voted not to renew Bordelon’s contract, citing reasons including low test scores, disciplinary problems, failure to provide adequate reports, and poor parent relations.
Procedural Posture:
- Lionel Bordelon sued the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in the U.S. District Court, alleging age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, among other claims.
- The Board of Education moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, finding that Bordelon's evidence of age discrimination did not support a finding of discriminatory intent.
- Bordelon filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied after excluding the additional evidence presented.
- Bordelon, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his age discrimination claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, against the Board of Education, as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff survive summary judgment on an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim under a 'cat's paw' theory when the presented evidence of the biased supervisor's discriminatory animus consists of conclusory statements, inadmissible hearsay, and ambiguous remarks?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, J.
No. A plaintiff fails to withstand summary judgment on an ADEA claim under a 'cat's paw' theory where the evidence of the supervisor's discriminatory animus is inadmissible or insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Bordelon's claim against the Board of Education relies on a 'cat's paw' theory, which requires him to show that his supervisor, Dr. Coates, harbored an age-based discriminatory animus and that this animus influenced the Council's decision not to renew his contract. The evidence Bordelon presented to prove Coates's animus was insufficient. Coates's statement that it was 'time for [Bordelon] to give it up' was ambiguous and reasonably interpreted by a witness as referring to poor school performance, not age. Testimony about a list of 'older' principals was not probative of age discrimination because most principals in the area were older and those named ran underperforming schools. Other evidence from coworkers was properly excluded by the district court as either too conclusory and lacking specific facts to support a claim of discrimination, or as inadmissible hearsay. Because Bordelon failed to present sufficient admissible evidence of Coates's discriminatory animus, his 'cat's paw' theory fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary threshold for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in employment discrimination cases, especially those relying on a 'cat's paw' theory. The court's decision highlights that circumstantial evidence must be specific and admissible; vague, conclusory allegations or inadmissible hearsay will not suffice to create a 'convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence.' This ruling demonstrates the critical role of evidentiary rules at the summary judgment stage, showing how a failure to ground allegations in concrete, admissible facts can be fatal to a claim. It serves as a strong reminder that plaintiffs must do more than allege a supervisor's animus; they must be prepared to prove it with evidence that can withstand judicial scrutiny under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
