Employment — national origin discrimination

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Employment — national origin discrimination

It was not national origin discrimination during a layoff, for an employer to require that an employee speak Spanish rather than Farsi to bump into a social worker’s position.

“Naficy points to several facts that she believes amount to direct evidence that IDHS discriminated against her in the bumping process. First, she makes much of the fact that despite her seniority, she was denied the Spanish-speaking Social Worker III position given to DeJesus. As best we can tell, she is suggesting that she has shown discrimination from the fact that IDHS had a need for a Spanish-speaking social worker instead of a multilingual employee, like Naficy, who spoke Farsi (Iranian) and Dari (Afghan). And although she asserts without support that IDHS ‘falsely’ said the position was for a Spanish speaker, there is no evidence in the record that supports this claim. The relevant question under the direct method is whether the evidence ‘points directly’ to a discriminatory motive for the employer’s decision. See Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 604 F.3d 490, 501 (7th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted). The fact that IDHS gave preference to a Spanish-speaking employee for a Spanish-speaking position not only fails to ‘point directly’ to discrimination, it does not even raise the implication of discrimination. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the fact that IDHS gave the position to DeJesus and not Naficy is that it needed an individual who spoke Spanish—a fact that has no bearing on whether or not IDHS did or did not want employees who spoke Persian. There is no evidence that there was a need for a Farsi or Dari-speaking Social Worker III. It thus strains reason to suggest that a Farsi speaker should be chosen for a Spanish-speaking position or to imply that discrimination motivated the choice of DeJesus over Naficy. The CBA expressly reserves IDHS’s right during a layoff ‘to establish bona fide requirements of specialized skills, training, experience and other necessary qualifications[.]’ Naficy can point to nothing suggesting that IDHS did not have a bona fide need for a Spanish speaker, and thus its choice of DeJesus for the position does not raise an inference of discrimination.”

Affirmed.

11-2144 Nacify v. Illinois Dep’t. of Human Services

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Holderman, J., Rovner J.