Pretext means that the employer's stated reason for an adverse employment action is a lie. See Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2006); Dyrek v. Garvey, 334 F.3d 590, 598 (7th Cir. 2003); O'Neal v. City of New Albany, 293 F.3d 998, 1005 (7th Cir. 2002). Even if Campbell knew of Llewellyn's depression, he still has not shown that the violation of company policy was not Campbell's real reasons for firing him.
A request for an accommodation is a statutorily protected activity. See Yindee v. CCH, Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2006). While Cloe never clearly identifies the specific adverse employment actions she received after she requested accommodations, the Court can glean three potentially adverse actions from Cloe's filings: (1) the "write-ups" Cloe received after Winfield became Cloe's supervisor; (2) the written notice of poor performance received after the Byram incident; and (3) Cloe's termination.
Even if an employer's decision is mistaken, there is no pretext so long as the decision-maker honestly believed the non-discriminatory reason. Hague v. Thompson Distribution Co., 436 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir.2006), quoting Ballance v. City of Springfield, 424 F.3d 614, 617 (7th Cir.2005); see also Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir.2006) ( “It is not enough to demonstrate that the employer was mistaken, inconsiderate, short-fused, or otherwise benighted; none of those possibilities violates federal law. Poor personnel management receives its comeuppance in the market rather than the courts.
And even if it had, our review is plenary, and so “we can (and will) make an independent decision under the proper standards.” Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir.2006). Moreover, we rejected this very argument recently in Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 647 F.3d 642 (7th Cir.2011).
There is no genuine issue of material fact when no reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party. Paz v. Wauconda Healthcare Rehab. Ctr., LLC, 464 F.3d 659, 664 (7th Cir.2006), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir.2006). A. Title VII: Firing from the Personnel Services Office
In other words, to survive Jumer's summary judgment motion, the Committee had to offer evidence from which a jury reasonably could find in its favor. See Yindee v. CCH, Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir.2006). Under the IUFTA,
In other words, to survive the Board's summary judgment motion, RJB had to offer evidence from which a jury reasonably could find in its favor. See Yindee v. CCH, Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir.2006). A. Equal Protection
Ptasznik v. St. Joseph Hosp., 464 F.3d 691, 697 (7th Cir. 2006) ("Federal courts have authority to correct an adverse employment action only where the employer's decision is unlawful, and not merely when the adverse action is unwise or even unfair. We do not sit as a super-personnel department with authority to review an employer's business decision . . . ."); Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2006) ("It is not enough to demonstrate that the employer was mistaken, inconsiderate, short-fused, or otherwise benighted; none of those possibilities violates federal law. Poor personnel management receives its comeuppance in the market rather than the courts.").
The Defendant also agrees that "without ovaries or a uterus, a woman is substantially limited in the major life activity of reproduction," CSMF ¶ 97—the very definition of a disability under the ADA. See Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir. 2006) (sterility that resulted from plaintiff's hysterectomy was "assuredly . . . a 'disability' under the ADA"); Zemrock v. Yankee Candle Co., No. 14-CV-30107-KAR, 2017 WL 506249, at *5 (D. Mass. Feb. 7, 2017) (plaintiff's hysterectomy was a disability because it was a physical impairment that substantially limited the major life activity of reproduction). However, the Defendant claims that Mullen presents an atypical case because she underwent tubal ligation years before her hysterectomy.
Poor personal management finds its comeuppance in the market rather than the courts." Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted); see also Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F.3d 455, 465 (7th Cir. 2016) (noting that the Seventh Circuit has long championed employers' rights to make their own decisions based on honest beliefs) (quoting Green v. National Steel Corp., Midwest Div., 197 F.3d 894, 899 (7th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff has not put forth evidence that suggests defendant's reason for discharging plaintiff is pretext for race discrimination.