Fields v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi. & Chad P. Weiden

928 F.3d 622 (2019) United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2019-06-27

civil; Section 1981 (and ADEA) race discrimination and retaliation by a public-school teacher; summary judgment for school board and principal affirmed by CA7 for want of an adverse employment action (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 1 Persons protected by equal contractual rights satisfied conceded
    Gloria Fields, a 63-year-old African-American woman, retired in 2016 from her job as a teacher with Chicago Public Schools.
  2. 2 Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract satisfied conceded
    Fields was a teacher at Edgebrook Elementary School from 2002 until May 2016, when she retired.
  3. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    Based partly on Weiden's observations, Chicago Public Schools rated Fields's job performance for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as "developing," which ranks below a "proficient" rating.
  4. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    The Board's opening position was that Fields could retire with a "do not hire" designation, preventing her from being rehired.
  5. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    She retired in May 2016 without ever returning to work.
  6. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    The second occurs when an employer acts in a manner that would make clear to a reasonable employee that she will be immediately fired if she does not resign.
  7. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    Fields cannot show that she was constructively discharged.
  8. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    She also has no evidence that her working conditions were objectively intolerable.
  9. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    And here, the mediation resulted in no punitive measures, and Weiden provided sworn testimony that he did not oppose Fields receiving no discipline because he wanted her performance to improve.
  10. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not no-evidence
    Fields also suggests that the negative performance reviews and performance improvement plans constitute adverse employment actions. She is incorrect.
  11. 10 Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation not no-evidence
    The notices stated that Fields could receive a "formal warning" or a "final warning" after the meetings, or that Weiden could recommend her dismissal to the Board.
  12. 10 Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation not no-evidence
    Weiden did not object because he wanted Fields to improve her performance, so Fields received no discipline as a result of the performance-improvement plans.
  13. 10 Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation not no-evidence
    To survive summary judgment Fields needed evidence that would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that her engagement in protected activity caused a materially adverse employment action.
  14. 10 Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation not no-evidence
    And she did not experience anything else that rises to the level of a materially adverse employment action.
  15. 10 Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation not no-evidence
    The pre-meeting notices, which warned that discipline was possible, and the mediation, which resulted in no discipline, did not affect Fields's career prospects or salary.
  16. 10 Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation not no-evidence
    And the performance improvement plans, even though they had the potential to lead to termination or other discipline, are not enough.