Silverman v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago
637 F.3d 729, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5661, 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 94,136 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's mere disagreement with an employer's negative performance evaluation is insufficient to establish that the employer's proffered non-discriminatory reason for an adverse action is a pretext for discrimination or retaliation under Title VII. To survive summary judgment, the employee must present evidence suggesting the employer's explanation is dishonest, not simply mistaken or unfair.
Facts:
- Amy Silverman was a probationary special education teacher at Lincoln Park High School, subject to annual contract renewal.
- In the spring of 2005, the Board of Education decided to eliminate one special education teaching position at the school.
- In March 2005, Silverman informed the school principal, Bessie Karvelas, that she was pregnant.
- On March 29, 2005, Karvelas selected Silverman for non-renewal from a group of seven probationary teachers.
- After Silverman filed a discrimination charge, the Board offered her a new position teaching autistic students for the 2005-2006 school year, which she accepted.
- During the 2005-2006 school year, Karvelas gave Silverman negative performance evaluations.
- In the summer of 2006, the Board decided not to renew Silverman's contract for a second time.
Procedural Posture:
- Silverman filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe the Board discriminated and retaliated against Silverman.
- Silverman filed suit against the Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
- The Board of Education moved for summary judgment.
- The district court (the trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the Board on both claims.
- Silverman, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the Board 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 an employee raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation sufficient to survive summary judgment by merely disagreeing with the employer's negative performance assessment and pointing to suspicious timing?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, J.
No. An employee fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment when their evidence only shows disagreement with the employer's business judgment and fails to suggest the employer's proffered reason was dishonest. For the pregnancy discrimination claim, Silverman's circumstantial evidence—an ambiguous comment from her principal, confusion over when the principal learned of the pregnancy, and suspicious timing—was insufficient. The principal's comment was not derogatory, and records showed she initially marked Silverman for renewal after learning of the pregnancy. The Board provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the non-renewal: a reduction-in-force where Silverman was deemed the least effective teacher. Silverman's disagreement with this performance assessment does not create a triable issue of fact as to whether the reason was a pretext, as courts do not second-guess an employer's honestly held business judgments. For the retaliation claim, the 2006 non-renewal was an adverse action, but Silverman failed to establish a causal link to her 2005 EEOC charge or show that the Board's reason—substandard performance—was pretextual.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant hurdle plaintiffs face in surviving summary judgment in employment discrimination cases, particularly under the 'honest belief' doctrine. The court's decision emphasizes that a plaintiff must attack the credibility and honesty of the employer's proffered reason, not just its accuracy or fairness. This makes it difficult for employees to proceed to trial if the employer has documented any performance-related justification for its decision. The ruling solidifies the principle that federal courts will not act as 'super-personnel departments' to second-guess routine, albeit potentially flawed, business judgments.
Unlock the full brief for Silverman v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago