Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1975 Everett v. Cook County

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 25, 2011//

10-1975 Everett v. Cook County

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 25, 2011//

Listen to this article

Employment
Race discrimination

Where the employee retained during layoffs had more administrative experience than the employee who was laid off, summary judgment was properly granted to the employer on the employee’s race discrimination claim.

“It is sufficient evidence of pretext that Everett lacks. Couture claimed that she chose Townsend because he was the most qualified for the post, based on his evinced desire to lead, productivity, administrative experience, clinical skill, and flexibility with the other physicians at Cermak. To show pretext, Everett points us to a productivity report from three years before the layoff that paints Everett as slightly more productive than Townsend, a statement by Knox—the former director at Cermak—that Everett was a productive dentist, and another statement by Knox that Townsend’s acting director duties at the clinic provided him with only minimal administrative experience. But even read in the light most favorable to Everett, none of this evidence shows that Couture’s reasons for choosing Townsend over Everett were phony. The dated productivity report, which Couture did not review in making her decision, does not establish that Couture lied about her reasons for choosing Townsend; at best, it shows that her decision was poorly researched, as one might expect given the time constraints of the layoff. The fact that a decision was poorly considered is not enough to establish pretext. See Van Antwerp, 627 F.3d at 298. More importantly, the report does not dispute the myriad other bases for Couture’s decision, specifically Townsend’s apparent supervisory experience. See Fischer v. Avanade, Inc., 519 F.3d 393, 403-04 (7th Cir. 2008) (‘[W]hen a defendant has offered multiple nondiscriminatory reasons for its hiring decision, showing that one of these reasons is pretextual is not enough . . . .’). And while Knox’s deposition testimony suggested that Townsend gained only minimal supervisory experience from his work as acting director, Knox conceded that Townsend gained some experience while serving in that capacity. In the end, there is nothing to suggest that Couture lied about her proffered reasons for choosing Townsend over Everett, and thus Everett’s direct claim lacks merit.”

Affirmed.

10-1975 Everett v. Cook County

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kendall, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests