By: Derek Hawkins//July 18, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Susan Shott v. Robert S. Katz
Case No.: 15-3528
Officials: KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Retaliatory Termination
Appellant discrimination claim falls for failure to state a claim.
“That analytic error was harmless, though. A plaintiff can plead herself out of court by alleging facts that show she has no legal claim. Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011). The retaliatory acts Shott alleged cannot plausibly be considered materially adverse. See Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 57. Shott did not, for example, allege that Katz was un‐ der any obligation to work with her or that he discouraged anyone else from working with her. Even if Katz’s refusal to collaborate with her was in some way motivated by disap‐ proval of herlitigation against Rush, that would not be action‐ able under § 1981. We held in Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 898– 900 (7th Cir. 2012), that an individual employee could be lia‐ ble under § 1981 for causing an employer (under a “cat’s paw” theory) to take retaliatory action against an employee. We have not gone so far, however, as to suggest that a plain‐ tiff’s fellow employees violate the implied retaliation prohibi‐ tion in § 1981 by not seeking out the plaintiff to collaborate on professional projects.”
Affirmed