Molly Joll v. Valparaiso Community Schools
953 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2020) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In employment discrimination cases, courts must consider all evidence as a whole to determine if there is an 'overall likelihood of discrimination' sufficient to defeat summary judgment, rather than evaluating each piece of evidence in isolation. Sex-role stereotyping, deviations from standard hiring procedures, and inconsistent employer rationales that consistently favor one sex can collectively support an inference of discriminatory intent.
Facts:
- Molly Joll worked as a teacher for over twenty-five years at Valparaiso Community Schools and had extensive running and coaching experience, including co-coaching the middle school cross-country team for twelve years.
- In 2013, Joll resigned her middle school coaching position to dedicate more time to her daughters' high school and college running careers, explaining that it was not fair to the program to divide her time.
- In 2014, Joll applied for the assistant coach position for the high school girls' cross-country team, and her interview focused on her 2013 resignation and whether her parenting duties would allow sufficient time for coaching.
- John Arredondo, a forty-year-old man, was also an applicant for the girls' team position and had also resigned a cross-country coaching position in 2013 for family reasons, but his interview focused on his coaching experience and philosophy.
- Valparaiso High School hired Arredondo for the girls' team, stating he had 'more current experience working with high school age athletes,' and Joll's references were contacted sooner than customary, including one reference who described her as having a 'dominate personality'.
- Joll then applied for the assistant coach position for the high school boys' cross-country team, and her interview again focused on her family responsibilities and time commitment.
- Ben Kerezman, a twenty-eight-year-old man, was the other applicant for the boys' team and was a teacher at Valparaiso High School, and his references were not checked because he was known to the athletic director.
- Valparaiso High School hired Kerezman for the boys' team, stating he had 'better rapport with the boys' and that being a teacher 'within the building' was a primary factor.
Procedural Posture:
- Molly Joll sued Valparaiso Community Schools in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
- Magistrate Judge John E. Martin heard the case with the parties’ consent.
- After discovery, the district court granted Valparaiso Community Schools' motion for summary judgment on both the sex discrimination and age discrimination counts.
- The district court entered final judgment against Joll.
- The district court denied Joll's motion to reconsider.
- Joll appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Joll as Plaintiff-Appellant, Valparaiso Community Schools as Defendant-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 present sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on a Title VII sex discrimination claim when she offers evidence of sex-role stereotyping during interviews, deviations from standard hiring procedures, and inconsistent hiring criteria that consistently favored male applicants, even if no single piece of evidence conclusively proves discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
Yes, a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on a Title VII sex discrimination claim when she offers evidence of sex-role stereotyping, procedural deviations, and inconsistent criteria that collectively create an 'overall likelihood of discrimination.' The district court erred by disaggregating Joll's evidence and asking if any single piece proved her case, rather than viewing the evidence as a whole, as required by Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. Joll provided evidence that interviewers focused on her family responsibilities and commitment, questions not asked of a similarly situated male applicant (Arredondo) who also resigned for family reasons, suggesting sex-role stereotyping in violation of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The school also deviated from standard reference-checking procedures for Joll, but not for Arredondo or Kerezman, which can suggest pretext. Furthermore, the school provided inconsistent reasons for hiring the male candidates over Joll for two nearly identical coaching positions: prioritizing 'more current experience with high school athletes' for the girls' team, then prioritizing 'rapport with the boys' and being a 'teacher within the building' for the boys' team. These shifting criteria consistently favored the male applicants, leading to an inference that the stated reasons were pretextual for sex discrimination. The court also clarified that the 'stray remarks' doctrine does not apply to comments made by decision-makers during the decision-making process, and the Millbrook rule regarding comparative qualifications only applies when such comparisons are the only evidence of pretext.
Dissenting - Ripple, Circuit Judge
No, Molly Joll did not come forward with sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that her gender was the reason she was not hired for either position. Each failure-to-hire claim should be evaluated as a discrete act, especially when different decision-makers and candidates are involved. The interview questions about Joll's family responsibilities for the girls' team were prompted by her own stated reason for resigning her previous position; there is no evidence the interviewers knew the male applicant's family-related reason for resigning. Principal Polite's comment about Joll having a 'dominant personality' was a legitimate, job-related assessment from her direct supervisor regarding her ability to serve in a subordinate role, not sex-stereotyping, and there is no evidence this trait was tolerated in male candidates or that Arredondo possessed it. Any deviation in reference-checking for the girls' team was due to different individuals overseeing the hiring process, and there is no evidence Joll's references were treated differently than Arredondo's by those decision-makers. The school's rationales for hiring for different positions, even if seemingly inconsistent, do not automatically raise an inference of pretext because they apply to distinct hiring decisions. Joll was not 'clearly better qualified' for either position under the criteria emphasized at the time, given Arredondo's recent high school experience for the girls' team and Kerezman's 'in-building' presence and rapport for the boys' team. The Ortiz standard, while emphasizing holistic review, still requires disregarding irrelevant evidence, and the evidence presented by Joll is insufficient to establish an overall likelihood of discrimination for either position.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the Seventh Circuit's approach from Ortiz, emphasizing that discrimination claims at summary judgment must be evaluated by considering all evidence holistically, not by dissecting and discrediting individual pieces. It clarifies that sex-role stereotyping, procedural irregularities, and shifting, inconsistent employer rationales that collectively disfavor a protected class can provide sufficient evidence for a jury to infer discrimination. The decision makes it more challenging for employers to obtain summary judgment in discrimination cases where multiple forms of circumstantial evidence, though not individually conclusive, cumulatively create a plausible inference of bias, particularly when decision-makers' comments are part of the hiring process.
