Kodl v. Board of Education School District 45, Villa Park, No. 06-336 (7th Cir. June 4, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling where a physical education teacher alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The court found the teacher presented no evidence that the school district’s reason for transferring her was a pretext and the teacher did not engage in protected expression. Karen Kodl was hired by the Board of Education School District 45, Villa Park in 1987 as a P.E. teacher at Jackson Middle School. In 2002, the principal of the middle school divided the P.E. Team Leader position into two separate positions: "Team Leader" and "Athletic Director." Ms. Kodl applied for both and was awarded the position of Team Leader, but rejected the offer. She filed a grievance under the belief the separation violated a collective bargaining agreement. The following year, in which Ms. Kodl did not apply, the positions were consolidated and awarded to a male under 40 years of age. In December 2003, Linda Rajca, another P.E. teacher, submitted a written complaint about Eric Willis, a male math teacher under the age of 40 who also taught some P.E. classes, alleging he was "very unprofessional and very demeaning." The school investigated the claims and concluded they did not amount to either sexual or general harassment. In March 2004, Ms. Kodl and Ms. Rajca filed another complaint accusing Tisha Alvarez, an under-40 P.E. teacher, of stealing petty cash, however, an investigation by the school found there was no proof of missing money. In April 2004, Mr. Willis notified the school that Ms. Kodl and Ms. Rajca had attempted to tape record him. Ms. Kodl admitted to this and received a written reprimand, but she contends Ms. Alvarez was also involved and did not receive a written reprimand. Also in that month, six teachers complained to administrators about Ms. Kodl’s and Ms. Rajca’s conduct. At the end of April 2004, Ms. Kodl received a performance evaluation with an overall rating of "satisfactory," but was warned that the district was concerned about her professionalism. Following the evaluation, the district then decided to transfer Ms. Kodl to Schafer Elementary School because she did not have positive interactions with the teachers a Jackson Middle School. Ms. Kodl filed five grievances following her transfer, including allegations of both age and sex discrimination, which were dismissed without merit by union representatives. A position opened up in the P.E. department at Jackson in October 2004, which Ms. Kodl applied for, but the position was given to a woman under 40. After Ms. Kodl filed her employment discrimination suit in federal district court. The court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded Ms. Kodl could not show the district’s reasons for transferring her were a pretext for discrimination. It also found Ms. Kodl had not engaged in protected activity and could not prove causation to establish a case of retaliation.
The Seventh Circuit, in reviewing the summary judgment motion de novo, noted summary judgment is proper when there is "no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The court first examined the discrimination claims stating Ms. Kodl could only prevail if she could prove the school district’s reasons for transferring here were a pretext, or a "deliberate false-hood," for discrimination. In examining whether a pretext exists, the court must look at what the employer believed the reasons were for the transfer. The court rejected Ms. Kodl’s argument that the school district’s reason was a pretext in light of the favorable treatment Mr. Willis and Ms. Alvarez received, noting there was no evidence either teacher was involved in any misconduct and there was substantial evidence Ms. Kodl engaged in unprofessional conduct, as she admitted to the tape recording incident. The court then examined Ms. Kodl’s retaliation claim, agreeing with the district court "that [Ms.] Kodl could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation … because she did not engage in protected expression, and even if she had, she failed to establish pretext." Protected expression only occurs if discrimination is based on the employee belonging to a protected class, such as sex, race or national origin, and cannot be shown if there is a complaint of general harassment. The court found neither Ms. Kodl’s grievance regarding the Team Leader position or Ms. Rajca’s written complaint constituted protected expression because neither amounted to age or sex discrimination. Additionally, the court held Ms. Kodl "could not establish a causal link in support of her retaliation claim" because her only evidence was the chronology of events, which was not sufficient to prove a causal connection.
Kodl v. Board of Education School District 45, Villa Park, No. 06-336 (7th Cir. June 4, 2007)
[Full opinion]