In the Seventh Circuit, “plaintiffs can rely on two frameworks to show discrimination.” Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023). One is a “holistic approach” under which courts “look at the evidence in the aggregate to determine whether it allows an inference of prohibited discrimination.” Id. (citing Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016)).
In the Seventh Circuit, “plaintiffs can rely on two frameworks to show discrimination.” Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023). One is a “holistic approach” under which courts “look at the evidence in the aggregate to determine whether it allows an inference of prohibited discrimination.” Id. (citing Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016)).
The Court “look[s] at the evidence in the aggregate to determine whether it allows an inference of prohibited discrimination.” Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023).
See Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023) (“Because [the employer] has raised [the employee]'s performance as the reason for his termination, we need not consider [the employee]'s prima facie case under McDonell Douglas or conduct a separate analysis of the facts under the two frameworks.”)
Although Ortiz sets forth the main question the Court should consider in its analysis, the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) "remains useful for focusing the evidence." Barnes, 946 F.3d at 389. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, "a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case for discrimination," Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023), which includes demonstrating that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) his performance met the school's legitimate, nondiscriminatory expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse educational action; and (4) similarly situated students outside his protected class were treated more favorably.
Because Defendants raise Hueramo's performance as the reason for his termination, the Court can skip the prima facie analysis and proceed directly to pretext. Vichio v. United States Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023). To show Defendants' reasons are pretextual, Hueramo needs to prove (or at least raise a question of fact) that Defendants' rationale for firing him was dishonest and that the true reason was discrimination.
Under Ortiz, the court “look[s] at the evidence in the aggregate to determine whether it allows an inference of prohibited discrimination.” Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023).
The Court notes that current Seventh Circuit precedent instructs that the McDonnell Douglas prima facie analysis may be skipped where "the employer raises the employee's performance as the reason for the adverse employment decision." Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023). "In such a case, issues of satisfactory performance and pretext overlap, allowing us to proceed directly to.. .pretext."
The Court “may skip the McDonnell Douglas prima facie analysis if the employer raises the employee's performance as the reason for the adverse employment decision.” Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2023) (citing Bragg v. Munster Med. Rsch. Found. Inc., 58 F.4th 265, 271 (7th Cir. 2023)). In that circumstance, “issues of satisfactory performance and pretext overlap, allowing us to ‘proceed directly to . . . pretext.'” Id.
In an employment discrimination case, "the sole question that matters [is] [w]hether a reasonable juror could conclude that [the employee] would have kept his job if he had a different [race], and everything else had remained the same." Ortiz v Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2016). In answering that question, courts often turn to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, in which "a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case for discrimination," Vichio v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 88 F.4th 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2023), which means demonstrating that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) his performance met the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably. Singmuongthong v. Bowen, 77 F.4th 503, 507 (7th Cir. 2023) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). Afterwards, the Court turns to the employer for evidence showing that the employee failed to meet its legitimate expectations, at which point the employee must show that the employer's answer was a "pretext"; that is, "an attempt to mask a discriminatory reason with a legitimate excuse.'" Crain v. McDonough, 63 F.4th 585, 593 (7th Cir. 2023).