Employment — race discrimination

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Employment — race discrimination

Where a probationary employee had numerous complaints from co-workers, his termination was not race discrimination.

“[S]ummary judgment in favor of GSA was still proper because Hill cannot show pretext, which is relevant to the prima facie case where, as here, an employer cites failure to meet legitimate expectations as the reason for discharge. See Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471, 477–78 (7th Cir.2010); O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 635 (7th Cir. 2011); Hague v. Thompson Distrib. Co., 436 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2006). An inquiry into pretext requires that we evaluate the honesty of the employer’s explanation, rather than its validity or reasonableness, see O’Leary, 657 F.3d at 636–37; Montgomery v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382, 396–97 (7th Cir. 2010); Naik v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 627 F.3d 596, 601 (7th Cir. 2010), and nothing in the record suggests that Hill’s boss used the negative reports from three of Hill’s coworkers as a mask to hide unlawful discrimination. Hill’s evidence shows only that he disagreed with Gabrish’s assessment of his interactions with coworkers, not that GSA lied about its reasons for firing him. See Everroad, 604 F.3d at 478 & n.2; Ptasznik v. St. Joseph Hospital, 464 F.3d 691, 696 (7th Cir. 2006); Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 2005).”

Affirmed.

12-3447 Hill v. Tangherlini

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