Magyar v. Saint Joseph Reg’l Med. Ctr. – Full Text

In th e
Un ited S tates Court o f Appea ls
F o r th e S ev en th C ircu it

No . 07-2197

JESSICA MAGYAR,

P la in ti f f-Appel lan t,

v .

SAINT JOSEPH REGIONAL M EDICAL CENTER,

D efendant-A pp ellee .

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.
No. 3:05-CV-0452—Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge.

ARGUED NOVEMBER 7 , 2007—D EC IDED SEPTEMBER 12 , 2008

Be fore POSNER, WOOD , and W ILLIAMS, C ircu it Judges .
WOOD , C ircu it Judge . Jessica M agyar (to whom we refer
in th is op in ion us ing her form er last nam e o f H ous ton ) los t
her job a t Sa in t Joseph Reg iona l M ed ical Cen te r (“ the
Hosp ita l” ) a fter she comp lained abou t perceived sexua l
haras sm en t . She sued th e Hosp ita l on th e theo ry th a t it
had v io la ted the an ti-re ta lia t ion prov is ion of T it le V II of
the C iv il R igh ts Ac t of 1964 , 42 U .S .C . § 2000e-3 (a ). Rea son –
ing tha t the evidence Hous ton subm it ted in response to

No . 07-2197

the Hosp ita l’s summ ary judgmen t m o t ion cou ld no t
support a find ing of causat ion , or in the a ltern a t ive
cou ld no t show tha t th e H osp ita l’s sta ted m o t ive for
term ina t ing her was pre tex tua l, the d is tric t cour t gran ted
summ a ry judgm en t to the H osp ita l . If we w ere the u lti-
m a t e tr ier of fac t , we wou ld f ind th is to be a c lose case .
W e are no t , how ev e r , and we conc lud e tha t the record
view ed in the ligh t m os t favo rab le to H ou ston wou ld
pe rm it her to p reva il . W e the re fo re reve rse and remand
for fur ther proceed ings .

I
W h ile at tend ing college , Hous ton took a p os i t ion on
Ap r il 19 , 2004 , as a pa rt -t im e a ss is tan t schedu le r in the
Hosp i ta l ’s surg ica l depar tmen t . She was c lassified as a
PRN emp loyee , w h ich m eans tha t her work hours de –
pend ed on the needs o f the Hosp ita l; she d id no t need to
con form to regu lar hours , d id no t rece ive bene fits , and was
no t requ ired to accep t work hou rs when offered . Th e
equ iva len t of a fu l l-t im e surgery schedu ler pos it ion was
covered by three peop le : one regu lar par t-t im e emp loyee
(Ca rm en Sanchez) who wo rked ha lf-t im e , and two PRN
emp loyees (Hous ton and M ik isha W i l l iam s , a lso a
college s tuden t) who toge ther took up the o the r ha lf of the
hours .
One day , Da le Car l , a 52 -year-o ld m ale co-w orker , cam e
in to a crow d ed H osp ita l lounge where there were no free
cha irs . P lopp ing down on 22 -year-o ld H ou s ton ’s lap , he
wh ispered “You ’re pre t ty” in to her ear. Hous ton w as no t
am used . Th is happen ed som e t im e betw een her Ap ril

No . 07-2197

h ir ing da te and la te Ju ly or early Augus t . Tha t was no t
the first ins tance o f Car l’s m isbehavior . Hous ton test ified
a t he r depos i t ion tha t app rox im a te ly one w eek before
tha t inc iden t , Car l had a lso sa t on h er lap and wh ispered
a comm en t abou t her appearance . She exp la ined tha t
“ I wa s hop ing it wa s ju s t a one-t im e occu rren ce , and
I d idn ’ t— I d idn ’t really— tha t wa s m y firs t real job and
I rea lly d idn ’t know wha t to do . And I had to check to see ,
you know , like wha t are the exact s tanda rd s in the
wo rk fo rce . And then I knew once he d id tha t the
second t im e tha t I had to talk to her because it was no t a
one -t im e occu rrence .” W hen Car l repea ted the sam e
m ove , Hou ston conc luded tha t it wa s tim e to take act ion .
A round the first week o f Augus t , Hous ton repor ted
the second inc iden t to Pam Godda rd , her bos s . Du ring
th is m ee ting , G oddard expressed re luc tance to speak to
Car l abou t the inc iden t if Hou ston was unw illing to file
a form a l comp lain t . In response , Hous ton revea led tha t
she had been a v ic tim of sexua l as sau l t in the pas t and
therefore she w as sen s i t ive to su ch behav ior . Goddard
agreed to speak to Car l and apparen t ly d id so la ter tha t
day . A lthough the d issen t asserts tha t Car l “apo log ized
p ro fu s e ly ,” no th ing in th e record show s that he eve r
said a wo rd to Hou s ton o r that she even hea rd tha t he
had apo log ized to Godd ard . The reason is because
Godd ard ac tua l ly told h im no t to apo log ize to Hous ton
when he asked whe ther he shou ld do so .
The d is sent con tend s tha t G odda rd dea lt w i th the
sexua l harassm en t comp lain t e ffec t ive ly , as no fur ther
inc iden ts took p lace . Bu t tha t is on ly ha lf the s tory ; from

No . 07-2197

Hous ton ’s perspec t ive , there was no ev idence tha t any –
th ing (effec t ive or o therw ise) had happened . Godd a rd
took no s teps wha tsoev er to commun icate w ith Hous ton
regard ing any resolu t ion of her com p la in t , and so a trier
o f fact cou ld in fe r tha t Hou s ton (e specia lly g iven the
earlier inc iden t o f sexua l assau lt ) was le ft in fear tha t a t
any mom en t the re m igh t be a th ird in c iden t . Goddard
d oes no t even a llege tha t she fo llow ed up w ith H ous t on ;
her depos it ion tes tim ony revea ls tha t she s imp ly assum ed
tha t the m a t ter had been pu t to res t : “I ta lked to M r . Ca r l
tha t a fternoon regard ing M s . [Hous ton ] ’s comp lain t .
I hea rd noth ing mo re from M s . [Hou s ton ] rega rd ing
M r . Car l and be lieved the issue had been resolved to
M s . [Hou ston ]’s sa tis fac tion , as I had spoken to M r . C ar l ,
as M s . [H ou s ton ] reques ted , and no fur ther inc iden ts
had occu rred .”
Hou s ton had eve ry reason to wonde r whe ther any
act ion had b een taken at a ll ; she p robab ly at tr ibu ted the
lack of fu rther inc iden ts to her own at temp ts to avoid Car l .
W hen asked in he r depos it ion whethe r Car l d id anyth ing
tha t Hous ton cons id ered harass ing in na ture a fter Hous –
ton ’s conversa tion w i th Godd ard , Hous ton test ified as
fo llow s : “No . Bu t I a lso tried to s tay as much away
from any con tact w i th h im . You know , I t ried to avoid any
o f the conversa t ions tha t I— you know , I tr ied to keep
any th ing I had w ith h im sho rt .” A l though the d is sent
a ssert s tha t Hou s ton sen t an em a il to Godda rd after the
m eet ing to exp re ss sat is fact ion w ith Godda rd ’s hand ling
o f the comp lain t (“ the sm iley -face em a il” ), th is em a il was
sen t on Ju ly 16 , weeks before the m ee t ing in ques tion ,
and d id no t per tain to the Car l inc iden t .

No . 07-2197

There fore , on Sep tember 17 , h av ing rece ived no fo llow –
up in form a tion from Goddard abou t the re so lu t ion o f the
inc iden t , Hous ton com p la ined abou t Goddard ’s fa i lure
to respond to her comp lain t to the Hosp i t a l ’s General
Counse l and Organ iza t iona l In tegr i ty Off icer , Rober t
W ade . Som e tim e du r ing the fo llow ing week , W ade con –
ta c ted Hum an Resources (“HR” ) , and HR ins truc ted
Godd ard to m ee t w i th Hous ton aga in . On Sep t ember 24 ,
Hou s ton and Godda rd m e t tw ice ; at som e p o in t , the
d iscu ss ion tu rned from the inc iden t w i th C a r l to the
ques t ion why Hous ton fe lt the need to approach W ade .
The nex t day , Goddard em a iled W ad e to repor t tha t
Hou ston ’s issu es “a re resolved .”
Godd ard w as m is taken . On Sep tem ber 26 (n ine days
a fter her first con tac t w i th W ade ) , Hous ton sen t W ade a
form al let te r add ressed “To W hom It M ay Con cern ,”
comp lain ing abou t the manner in wh ich Godd ard had
hand led her in it ia l comp lain t and the new fac t tha t Hous –
ton ’s “ job had been pos ted on the job lis tings” w ithou t
not ify ing her , in appa rent “ re ta lia tion fo r m e tu rn ing
her [Godd a rd ] in .” Hous ton ’s affidav it and her Sep tem –
ber 26 le t ter bo th ind ica te that sh e con sid ered it inap –
p ropr ia te tha t she had to revea l her traum a t ic pas t in
order to prod Goddard in to ac t ion . On O c tober 7 ,
Godd ard subm it ted to HR a job requ is it ion form to res truc –
ture th e posit ion covered by PRN emp loyees Hous ton
and W illiam s in to a sing le regu lar h a lf-t im e posit ion
w ith bene fits . The d issen t de fends Godd ard ’s dec is ion to
expend budge t fund s on the paym en t of benefits by
assum ing that , if Goddard d id no t use these fund s , they
wou ld d isappear in the nex t budge t cyc le . There is no
support in th e record for th is fac tual assump t ion (w h ich

No . 07-2197

in te rp re ts the record in the ligh t m o s t favorable to the
de fendan t Hosp ita l) , nor for assum ing tha t th is fa c t ,
even if true , mo t ivated Godda rd ’s decis ion .
In an y ev en t , Hous ton was unab le to b id for the new
pos it ion becau se it con flic ted w ith h er c lass sch edu le . On
Oc tober 20 , the Hosp i ta l gave the
job , wh ich now
inc lud ed bene fits , to W illiam s , who was the on ly person
to b id for it since she had d ropp ed ou t o f co llege and freed
up her schedu le . Two days la ter , Goddard to ld H ous ton
tha t she rema ined c la ss ified a s a PRN and tha t she
wou ld be ca lled if sh e was need ed .
Godd ard ’s s tatem en t turned ou t to be on ly ha lf true .
Sho r t ly a f t er she to ld H ous ton tha t she w as st ill a PRN ,
Goddard to ld W illiam s and Sanchez to let her know if
they needed som eone to cover for them , ra ther than
ca lling Hous ton . The Hosp ita l asserts tha t the reason for
th is
ins truc t ion w as Godd ard ’s bus iness po l icy of
cover ing sh ifts w ith regu lar em p loyee s when ever it is
poss ib le to do so w i th ou t pay ing overt im e , ra ther than
us ing PRN s . Be tw een Oc tober 22 , 2004 , and Apr il 26 , 2005 ,
Hou s ton was not ca lled in to work a t the H osp ita l a
s ing le t im e . On Ap r il 26 , 2005 , she received not ice tha t she
had been form a l ly term ina ted becau se she d id no t work
enough hou rs a s a PRN emp loyee du ring the re levan t
pe riod ; on the Term ina t ion Form subm it ted to HR e ffect ing
th is ac tion , Godda rd m a rked “no” in the box asking
whe ther the emp loyee was e lig ib le for reh ire .
Be liev ing that the Hosp ita l had reta lia ted aga ins t her
for com p la in ing abou t Car l’s harassm en t and for com –
p lain ing abou t its fa ilure adequa te ly to add re ss tha t
hara ssmen t , Hou ston filed th is su it under T it le V II. The

No . 07-2197

d ist ric t cou rt gran ted summ ary judgm en t to the H osp ita l ,
find ing tha t H ous ton had fa iled to estab lish a pr ima fac ie
case of re ta lia tion , and tha t she fa iled to show that the
Hosp i ta l ’s asser t ion tha t it was p lann ing to res truc tu re
her job was p re tex tual .

II
Be fore tu rn ing to H ous ton ’s argum en ts on appea l , w e
shou ld add ress a procedura l po in t tha t the Hosp ita l has
ra ised in support of it s judgm ent . In the d is tr ic t cou rt , the
Hosp ita l moved to strike H ou ston ’s a ffidav it becau se it
w as uns igned , bear ing ins tead so le ly an “e lec tron ic s igna –
ture .” The d is tric t cour t den ied the m o t ion because Hous –
ton subm it ted ano ther affidav it on wh ich her ac tua l
s ignatu re was add ed n ea r th e e lec tron ic s ignatu re . On
appea l , the Hosp i ta l asks th is cou r t to d isregard Hous ton ’s
a ffidav it and thus to eva lua te Hous ton ’s response to its
summ a ry judgm ent w i thou t tha t in form a tion .
A d is t r ic t cour t ’s ru l ing on a mo t ion to s trike an
affid av it is review ed for an abuse o f d isc re tion . M anno ia v .
Farrow , 476 F .3d 453 , 456 (7 th C ir . 2007) . The Hosp ita l
w as no t pre jud iced by the in it ia l de fec t in the a ff id av i t
( to the ex ten t tha t i t w as a defec t a t a l l in a wor ld whe re
elec tron ic s ign a tu res are regu lar ly honored , see , e .g . ,
E lec tron ic Signa tures in G loba l and N a t iona l Comm erce
A c t , 15 U .S .C . § 7001 (requ iring recogn ition of elec tron ic
s igna ture s) , Un iform E lect ron ic T ran sact ion s Ac t , and
Ind iana E lec tron ic D ig ita l S ignatu re A c t , Bu rn s Ind . Cod e
Ann . § 5-24-3 -1) . In any even t , Hou ston imm ed iately
sub st itu ted a copy w i th a t rad it iona l s igna ture . The

No . 07-2197

d is tr ic t cou rt d id not abu se it s d iscre tion in deny ing
H osp ita l’s m o t ion to s tr ike . H ous ton ’s a ffidav it is thu s
properly part of the record be fore us .

III
The on ly issue rem a in ing in th is app ea l is whe ther
the d is tric t cour t erred in gran t ing summ ary judgm en t for
the Hosp i ta l . W e review a gran t of summ a ry judgm ent
de novo . Sound o f M usic C o . v . 3M , 477 F .3d 910 , 914 (7 th
C ir . 2007) .
A c la im of re talia t ion under T it le V II m ay be es tab lished
under e i ther the d irec t m e thod or the ind irec t bur-
den-sh ift ing me thod , wh ich is an adap ta tion of the
fam i lia r framewo rk se t forth in M cDonnel l D oug las Corp . v .
G reen , 411 U .S. 792 (1973) . See St one v . C ity o f Ind ianap o l is
Pu b . U ti ls . D iv ., 281 F .3d 640 , 644 (7 th C ir . 2002 ). Hous ton
has decided to re ly on the d irect m e thod of p roof . To
es tab lish a prim a facie case th is way , she mu s t “p re sent
d irec t ev idence o f a s tatu torily p ro tec ted ac t iv ity , an
adverse emp loym en t ac t ion , and a causa l connec t ion
be tw een th e two .” H ayw ood v . Lucent Techs ., Inc ., 323 F .3d
524 , 531 (7 th C ir . 2003 ). W e con s ide r each e lemen t in tu rn .

A . Statutorily p rotected activity
The Ho sp ital a rgues tha t Hou ston wa s not engaging
in s tatu torily pro tec ted act iv ity because , even by
H ou ston ’s a llega t ion s , th e re ta lia t ion was a respon se to
h e r app roach ing W ade to comp la in abou t Goddard ’s
com p la in t -m anagem en t sk ills (“ in re ta lia t ion for m e

No . 07-2197

turn ing her in” ) , no t her ear lier app roach to Goddard to
comp lain abou t Car l’s alleged sexua l harassm en t .
The d istric t cou r t imp l ic it ly re jec ted th is argum en t ,
s tat ing that “[e ]ven though the Hosp ita l is correc t tha t M s .
Hous ton ’s com p la in t to M r . W ade abou t M s . Goddard
can ’t be seen a s a comp la in t abou t sexua l ha ra ssmen t
or d iscr im inat ion , M s . Hou ston ’s comp la in t abou t inap –
p rop ria te touch ing by M r . Car l clear ly fa lls w ith in
T i tle V II protec tion .” In support o f her pos it ion , Hous ton
c ites the d is tr ic t cou rt ’s decis ion in John son v . Coun ty o f
N assau , 480 F . Supp . 2d 581 , 602 (E .D .N .Y . 2 007 ) . The
court there found tha t the p la in t i f f , who w as D irec tor o f
the O f fice o f D iversity , had stepped ou ts ide h is job du t ies
and therefo re engaged in p ro tec ted ac tiv ity , becau se in
add it ion to rais ing emp loyee comp lain ts of d iscrim ina –
t ion “he comp la ined tha t De fendan t s we re not fu lfilling
the ir du t ie s under T it le V II in p rope rly inve st iga ting
these comp lain ts .” Wh ile tha t case is obv ious ly not
b ind ing on th is cour t and the fac ts are som ewha t d ifferen t ,
w e find it persuas ive . Tak ing the fac ts in the ligh t mos t
favorab le to Hous ton , as we mus t at th is stage , the com –
p la in t to Goddard w ith th e fo llow -up com p la in t to Wade
m ade up one con t inuous comp lain t proce ss to wh ich
Hous ton resorted . In e ffec t , she w as ask in g W ade to
ensure tha t the ins t itu t ion do som e th ing abou t sexua l
ha rassm en t ; there i s no t a h in t tha t she had ano the r ,
unre la ted , gr ievan ce abou t Goddard .1

1
W e no te in th is conne ct ion tha t th e p ro cedu re s fo r add re ss ing
sexu a l ha rassm en t p lay a cr i t ica l ro le in th is area o f the law .
(con t inued . . .)

No . 07-2197

W e no te tha t , to succeed on a re ta lia t ion c la im ,
Hou s ton need not p rove tha t the under ly ing cond uc t she
pe rceived as sexua l hara ssmen t a c tua lly wa s se riou s
enough to con st itu te a T it le V I I v iola tion . In stead , she
need on ly show that , when in st itu t ing her gr ievanc e , she
had a “s in cere and rea sonab le be lie f” that sh e was op –
pos ing an un law fu l prac tice . H amner v . St . V incent H osp . &
H ea lth Care C tr., Inc ., 224 F .3d 701 , 706-07 (7 th C ir . 2000) .
The ob jec t ive reasonab leness o f the be lie f is n o t assessed
by exam in ing wh e ther the conduc t was pers is ten t or
seve re enough to be un law fu l , bu t m erely whether it falls
in to the ca tegory of conduc t proh ib ited by the s tatu te .
Con trast id . (ho ld ing tha t gr ievance abou t ha ra ssmen t
engende red by “hom ophob ia” w a s not ob ject ively reason –
ab le and thus cou ld no t form th e bas is of a reta lia t ion
c la im , because “ [s ]exua l or ien ta tion is not a c lassifica t ion
tha t is pro te c ted under T it le V II” ). T it le V II does protec t
emp loyees from d iscr im ina t ion on the ba sis of sex , and

1
( . . .con t inued )
Ind e ed , in F aragher v . C ity o f B o ca R a ton , 524 U .S . 775 (1998 ) , and
Bu r ling ton Indu s . , In c . v . E l le rth , 524 U .S . 742 (1998 ) , the Sup rem e
Cou r t re cogn iz ed a p rocedu ra l a ffirm a t iv e d e fense fo r em p loy –
e rs , wh en harassm en t by a sup e rv iso r d o e s no t re su l t in a
tang ib le em p loym en t ac t ion . I f the em p lo y e r has exe rc ised
rea son ab le care to p rev en t and corr ec t ha rassm en t (typ ica l ly
th rough an e ffec tive an t i -ha rassm en t po l icy fo r the wo rkp lace )
and th e em p loy ee ha s un reasonab ly fa iled to ava i l h er se lf o f
tha t po l icy , then the em p loye r w i ll p reva i l . See F aragh er , 524 U .S .
a t 807 -08 ; E l le rth , 524 U .S . a t 764 -6 5 . An em p loy ee in th e m id s t
o f com p la in ing abou t und er ly ing ha rassm en t m ay w e l l w ish
to cr it ic ize the com pany ’s p rocedu res a t the sam e t im e .

No . 07-2197

sexua l harassm en t is a rec ogn ized spec ies o f such d is –
cr im ina t ion . 29 C .F .R . § 1604 .11 .
In th is cas e , the record su ffic ien t ly demons trates tha t
Hou ston sub jec tively felt that sh e had been sexu ally
harassed . In add i t ion , the lap inc iden ts involved ac tua l
touch ing . Th is cour t has often r ecogn ized in the pas t
tha t unw an ted phys ica l con ta c t fa lls on the m ore severe
sid e fo r p u rposes of sexual haras sm en t . A s w e noted in
P a tton v . Key ston e RV Co . , 455 F .3d 812 (7 th C ir . 2006) :
Ou r preceden t provides som e gu idance on how to
eva lua te the sever ity o f harassm en t :
On one s ide lie sexua l assau l ts ; other phys ica l
con tac t , wh e ther amorous or hos t i le , for wh ich
there is no consen t express or imp l ied ; un inv i t ed
sexua l solic ita tions ; in t im ida t ing words or ac ts;
obscene language or gestures ; pornograph ic p ic –
tures . On the other s ide lies the occas iona l vu lgar
ban ter, t inged w ith sexua l innuendo , of coarse or
boorish worke rs . . . .
455 F .3d a t 816 , c it ing Baskerv il le v . Cu ll igan In t’ l Co ., 50
F .3d 428 , 430 (7 th C ir . 1995 ) . See also , e .g . , W orth v . Tyer ,
276 F .3d 249 , 268 (7 th C ir . 2001 ) (“The fac t tha t conduc t
that invo lves tou ch ing as opposed to verba l behav io r
increases the sever ity of the s ituat ion .”) ; H ostet ler v . Qua l ity
D ining , Inc . , 218 F .3d 798 , 806 (7 th C ir . 20 00 ) . H av ing a
m an o ld enough to be her fa ther p lop in to he r lap and pu t
h is lip s to her ea r to wh isper “you ’re beau t ifu l” is the
type o f occu rrence tha t , if it happened often enough ,
cou ld con st itu te sexua l hara ssmen t , and so Hou ston ’ s
grievance was ob jec t ive ly reasonab le .

No . 07-2197

V iew ing the evidence in th e l igh t mos t favorab le to
Hou s ton , we conc lude tha t she has shown tha t she
engaged in a statu tor i ly p rotec ted act iv ity when she
comp la in ed up th e chain of comm and .

B . Adverse emp loym en t ac tion
The par t ies do no t d ispu te tha t H ou s ton su ffered an
adverse em p loym en t ac t ion . Whe ther we look to her
in it ia l loss of work around O c tober 20 , 2004 , wh en her
PRN po sit ion d isappeared and W illiam s rece ived the
n ew part -t im e job , or w e focu s on h er even tual ou t-and –
ou t term inat ion on Ap r il 26 (w ith th e add ed in su lt st ip –
u lat ing that she was no t e lig ib le for reh ire) , her case
easily sa t is fies th is elem en t .

C . Causa l conn ec tion
The las t e lem en t Hous ton mus t es tab lish is a causal
connec tion be tween he r statu to r ily p ro tec ted act iv ity and
the adverse emp loym en t ac t ion . Susp ic ious t im ing , to –
ge th er w ith other fac ts , can som e t im es raise an in ference
of a cau sa l connec tion . La lvan i v . Cook C ounty , 269 F .3d
785 , 790 (7 th C ir . 2001) ; Pa luck v . Good ing Rubber Co ., 221
F .3d 1003 , 1009-10 (7th C ir . 2000) . Hou ston and the H osp i-
ta l argue over wh e ther the w indow o f t im e in th is case
wa s narrow enough to be susp ic iou s . W e can measure the
t im e in seve ra l ways . The way mo s t favorable to the
H osp ita l wou ld be from Hous ton ’s ear ly Augus t com –
p lain t to Goddard to her term ina t ion le t ter a lm os t ten
m on th s la te r . The w ay m os t favo rab le to H ou ston wou ld

No . 07-2197

be from her renewed comp lain t to W ade on Sep tember 26
(w h en Goddard rea lized that Hou ston was not go ing to
le t the sub jec t drop ) to the day wh en G od d ard sub –
m i t ted the res tru c tu r ing reques t to HR , on O c tober 7— a
m ere n ine days . Or on e m igh t look at Hous ton ’s first
comp lain t to W ade on Sep tem ber 17 as the s tar ting –
po in t and her d ism issal from her ex is t ing PRN job on
Oc tober 20 , approx im a tely a mon th la ter , as the end -po in t .
Th is court has found a mon th shor t enough to re in force
an in ference of re talia t ion . See Lang v . Ill . D ep’t o f Children
& F am i ly S ervs . , 361 F .3d 416 , 419 (7 th C ir . 2004 ) (adverse
emp loym en t ac t ions began “ the sam e m on th” p la in t iff
f iled the rac ia l d iscr im ina t ion gr ievan ce w i th h is un ion) .
A lthou gh the lap inc iden ts took p lace in early Augus t
(and perhap s a b it ear lier) , w e th ink tha t the ap –
p roach mo st favo rab le to Hou ston is to as sum e tha t the
susp ic ious -t im ing c lock was res tar ted on Sep tem ber 17 ,
becau se tha t is when Hou s ton comp la ined to W ade , the
Gen eral Counse l and Integ rity O ffice r . From that po in t , it
is at mos t n ine days b e fo re the first sign of an adverse
emp loym en t ac t ion , because by the Sep tember 26 le t ter
Hous ton a lready knew tha t her job h ad been pos ted on
th e job lis t ings . Th e fac t that fu ll ex ecu tion of th e adver se
ac tion took a wh ile longe r for bu reau cra tic rea sons is
imm a ter ia l . On ce the whee ls were in mo t ion , Goddard
subm it ted the requ is it ion form on October 7 , filled the
pos it ion on Oc tober 20 , den ied Hous ton w ork hours ,
w aited seve ra l mon th s , and then term inated her in Ap ril
for work ing insu f fic ien t hours (a flaw tha t Goddard w as
ab le to eng ineer herse lf) .

No . 07-2197

The Ho sp ital at temp t s to m in im ize the causal link
be tw een Hous ton ’s comp la in t to W ade and Goddard ’s
a lleged ly re ta lia tory re st ruc tu r ing of the job by po in t ing
ou t tha t Godd ard “exp l ic it ly s ta ted (in a secre t ly -tape –
recorded conversa tion ) tha t she h ad no prob lem w i th
‘anyone t ak ing any th ing to the Lega l Depar tm en t .’” First
o f a ll , no trier o f fac t wou ld be compe lled to be lieve
Goddard ’s protestat ion of open -m indedness . Second , wh ile
Goddard d id
li tera l ly u t ter these word s , they are
sandw iched be tween o th er words ; taken as a who le ,
a ra t iona l jury cou ld in terpre t the conversa tion in Hous –
ton ’s favor . He re is the fu ll quotat ion :
I have no p rob lem w i th anyone taking anyth ing to the
lega l depa rtmen t bu t I am ju s t cu riou s when the
s itua t ion was dea lt w i th I though t it was dea lt w i th
very effec t ive ly it was a pos it ive ou t com e . You got
wha t you asked fo r . A nd yet you s till because you
don ’t th ink I sa id the r igh t w ord s or I ph ra sed the r igh t
sen tence wha t w as your expec ta t ion o f wha t you
w an ted to see happen a fter tak ing it to the hosp ita l (? )
depar tm en t .
(Hosp ital Supp . App . 36 ) (impe rfect ion s in transcr ip t of the
tape -recorded conve rsat ion ). A rea sonab le ju ry cou ld find
Godd ard ’s s tatem en ts defensive and accusatory. She com es
across as hav ing a sub s tan t ia l p rob lem w i th Hous ton ’s
dec is ion to take the m a t ter to the legal depar tmen t , desp ite
her per func tory sta tem en t to the con trary . Th is , toge ther
w ith tes t im ony from Hous ton tha t Godd ard ’s tone w i th
her w as de fens ive and irrita ted , Goddard ’s own adm iss ion
tha t she fe lt “ shocked” and “bew i lde red” when she

No . 07-2197

learned tha t Hous ton had c om p la ined abou t Goddard ’s
hand ling of the comp la in t , and the fact tha t Godd a rd
pos ted H ous ton ’s job on the job lis t ings w i th in a few days
of th is m ee ting , is m ore than m ere susp ic iou s t im ing . It is
suffic ient to ra ise an in fe rence of causat ion .

D . Bu t-for Causa tion
Even i f a ll that is true , the H osp ita l argues , it is st ill
en tit led to summ ary judgm en t on the bas is of what it ca lls
unrebu t ted ev idence tha t Goddard a lready in tended to
e lim ina te Hou ston ’s job for a legit im a te bu sines s reason .
Compare S tone, 281 F .3d a t 644 (ho ld ing tha t summ ary
judgm en t in favor of de fendan t is requ ired when de fen –
dan t p resen ts “unrebu tted ev id en ce that he wou ld have
taken the adverse emp loym ent act ion aga in s t the p la in –
t iff even if he had had no re ta l ia tory mo t ive”) .
Th rough Godd ard ’s depos it ion , the Hosp ita l presen ted
ev idence tha t , upon taking the job o f D irec tor o f Surg ica l
Serv ices in June 2004 , Goddard learned tha t two PRN s
(Hou s ton and W illiam s ) we re do ing the job of one
regu lar part -t im e emp loyee . Goddard tes t ified tha t sh e
regarded th is as an und es irab le bus iness prac tice , because
the budge t a llowed for a par t -t im e posit ion w i th bene fits ,
so it shou ld be f illed in tha t w ay . (The po in t abou t benefits
w as an odd one , g iven the fac t th a t benefits impose sub –
s tan t ia l cos ts on emp loye rs . An Augu st 2005 s tudy pe r –
form ed for the Sm a ll Bus iness A dm in is tra t ion reported
tha t abou t 29% of a bus iness ’s to ta l compensa t ion cos ts
for hour ly emp loyees is at tribu tab le to bene fits . See “Cos t
o f Emp loyee Bene fits in Sm a ll and L arge Bu s inesses ,” at 6 ,

No . 07-2197

a t www .sba .gov/advo /research /rs262 to t .pd f (las t v is ited
7/19 /08) . It is unc lea r why Goddard though t that it wou ld
be be t ter if h er emp loyer shou ldered tha t burden .) A lso ,
sh e said , a regu lar em p loyee wou ld have p red ictab le
and re liab le hou rs comm itm en ts (though there is n o
ev iden ce that Hou ston and W illiam s w ere eve r unavail-
ab le when the H osp ita l need ed them .)
It is t rue tha t Hou s ton re sponded on ly by comm ent ing
tha t Godd ard ’s s tatem en ts were se lf-serv ing , bu t th is was
jus t ano ther w ay o f saying tha t a trier o f fac t w ou ld have
to eva lua te everyth ing Goddard sa id and d ec ide wha t
to accep t and wha t to re ject . Even w ithou t d irect rebu t t ing
ev idence from Hous ton , the Hosp i tal’s ev idence fa ils to
e stab lish tha t Hou s ton firs t wou ld have los t her PRN
pos it ion and then wou ld have been e ffec t ive ly black lis ted
for a ll s im ilar work un t il her term ina t ion in the absence
o f th e re ta lia tory mo t ive . It m ere ly show s that th e job
res truc tur ing m igh t have occurred anyway a t som e po in t .
On th e o ther hand , a trier of fac t m igh t have seen
Godd ard ’s exp lana t ion of the t im ing of her ac tion as
on ly a post hoc ju st ifica t ion . Goddard sta ted :
I fe lt the s itua t ion I inher ited ( tw o PRN emp loyees
filling a regu lar , par t-t im e posit ion ) wou ld need to
be add ressed . . . . A fter dea ling w i th the mos t
c rit ical is sues facing the Su rg ical Se rv ice Departmen t
th rough the summ er of 2004 , I turned m y at ten t ion
to correc t ing the use o f PRN em p loyees in a regu lar
pos it ion in the fa ll of 2004 .
The Hosp ita l canno t m ee t its burden on summ ary judg –
m ent by hav ing the ac tor say on ly tha t she wa s th ink ing

No . 07-2197

vague ly of res truc turing the job and p lanned to do it when
she go t arou nd to it . The fac t tha t the Hosp i ta l a lso pre –
sen ted tes tim ony th a t Goddard had no t had a s itua t ion
in wh ich two PRN s were sharing a job in a l l her pr ior
m anagem en t yea rs at the hosp ita l does not com p el a
d ifferen t r e su lt . To the con trary , the fac t-finder cou ld
con c lud e tha t the fac t tha t the “s itua t ion” con t inued
w ithou t be ing “add ressed” for over three m on ths ind ica tes
tha t there wa s no u rgency or even inev itab ility abou t
the Hosp ital’s decis ion to te rm ina te Hou ston ’s pos it ion .
A lthough the d issen t con tends there is “no doub t” tha t
Goddard in tended to conve rt the PRN po si t ion s from the
t im e she cam e on boa rd desp ite the delay in ca rry ing ou t
th is in ten tion , it is ab le to com e to that con c lu s ion on ly
by v iew ing the eviden ce in the record in the ligh t mos t
favorab le to the H osp ita l . Tha t is no t the standard w e
mus t app ly ; in our v iew there is enough in the record to
ent it le a reasonab le ju ry to find in favor of Hou ston .
* * *
B ecau se Hou ston has es tab lish ed a p r im a facie case of
reta lia t ion and the Hosp ita l has no t shown an absence
o f m a ter ia l fac t on the ques t ion whe ther it wou ld have
taken the sam e ac t ion even w i thou t a re talia tory mo t ive ,
w e REVERSE the d is tr ic t cour t’s gran t of summ ary judg –
m en t in favor of th e Hosp ita l and REMAND the case for
fur ther proceed ings .

No . 07-2197

POSNER, C ircuit Judge , d issen t ing . The p la in t iff , Jess ica
Hous ton , con tends tha t the de fendan t , a hosp ita l tha t
form er ly emp loyed her , d ism issed her from her qu ar ter-
t im e job in re ta lia tion for her hav ing comp la ined to the
hosp ita l’s genera l coun se l abou t the hand ling of her
c la im of sexua l harassm en t . There is insu f fic ien t ev idence
o f re talia t ion to a l low the case to go to a jury ; and even
if there were su ffic ien t ev iden ce , th ere is no evidence o f
re ta lia tion for engaging in p rotec ted conduc t , and w ithou t
tha t , there is no v io la t ion of T it le V II. T h e d is tric t judge
wa s there fore r igh t to gran t summ a ry judgm en t fo r the
de fendan t , and we shou ld affirm .
Short ly a fter Hou ston wa s h ired a s an as sis tan t
schedu ler in the hosp i ta l ’s su rgery depar tm en t , whe re
sh e and another co llege s tuden t shared a half – t im e pos i-
t ion , P am Goddard becam e the sen ior d irec tor o f surg ica l
serv ices . She had worked for the hosp i ta l for m any years
and as sen ior services d irec tor su p erv ised more than
200 emp loyees . The job o f as sis tan t schedu ler is a respon si-
b le one . It inc lud es p rov id ing s c rub s to phys ic ians , en ter-
ing in fo rm a t ion con cern ing t imes for su rgery tha t are
g iven to the schedu le r by a nu rse , and orde ring and
p icking up x -rays for use in forthcom ing surg ica l opera –
tions . College kid s w ho like Hou ston were working on ly
one -quar ter o f a norm a l work w eek d id no t w ork regu lar
hou rs and th e re wa s no as su rance tha t e ithe r she or the
o ther assis tan t schedu ler wou ld be availab le at all t im es
when they we re needed . G odd a rd wan ted to rep lace the
two co llege s tud en ts w ith a regu lar ha lf-t im e emp loyee ,
and even tually sh e d id .

No . 07-2197

Bu t m eanwh ile th ere had been an inc iden t a t work in
w h ich a m a le emp loyee had sa t down in Hous ton ’s lap
un inv ited and sa id “You ’re beau t ifu l ,” and ano ther
inc iden t in wh ich he had “wh isp ered [to her ] an unw el-
com e sexua l comm ent ,” though she ha s no t sa id wha t the
comm en t w as . A fter the second inc iden t Hous ton com –
p lained to Godd ard . The la t ter was reluc tan t to take
ac t ion becau se Hous ton had no t invoked the hosp i ta l ’s
prescr ibed procedure for comp lain ing abou t sexua l
hara ssmen t—un t il Hous ton vo lun teered the in forma t ion
tha t she had been the v ic t im of a sexua l assau lt , though
no t by the sam e m an o r a t th e hosp i ta l . The sam e af ter-
noon that Goddard learned th is , she spoke to the m ale
emp loyee abou t whom Hous ton had comp lained . H e was
con tr ite , and th ere was no rep et it ion of h is offen s iv e
behav ior . So , in a m a t ter of a few hours , Hous ton ’s griev –
an ce was su ccess fu lly reso lved .
Hou s ton made no fu rthe r c om p la in ts e ithe r abou t the
m a le em p loyee who she c la im ed had harassed her or
abou t anyone e lse , and th is is compe lling evidence tha t
Godd ard ’s ac t ion in response to her comp lain t had been
e ffec t ive . The s ta tem en t in the m a jority op in ion tha t
Hou s ton “probab ly at tribu ted
the
lack o f
fur ther
inc iden ts to her own a t temp ts to avo id ” the a lleged
harasser is a con jec tu re that has no bas is in th e record ;
she d id test ify tha t she tried to m in im ize her con tac ts
w i th h im , bu t tha t is the na tura l reac t ion to som eone
who you th ink has harassed you , wh e ther or no t you
fear fu r the r ha ra ssmen t . There is a lso no ba sis for the
a ssert ion in the ma jor ity op in ion tha t by no t report ing the
conversa t ion w i th the a l leged haras se r , Goddard had lef t

No . 07-2197

Hous ton “ in fear tha t a t any m om en t the re m igh t be a th ird
inc iden t .” No reasonab le ju ry cou ld d raw such an in fe r –
ence . Hous ton had m ade no com p la in t abou t the first
inc iden t , a fter the second inc id en t had said tha t she was
in “no ru sh” to mee t w i th Godda rd , filed no comp la in t
agains t the harasser , m ad e no e ffort to fo llow up w i th
G odda rd , and wa ited two mon th s be fore tak ing the
m a t ter to the general counse l . Those are not the ac tions o f
som eone in fear of a th ird inc iden t of hara ssmen t “a t any
m om en t .” W hen she d id even tua lly comp la in to the
genera l counse l, she sa id noth ing abou t fearing a th ird ac t
o f harassm en t . H is notes of the ir m ee t ing , report ing wha t
she told h im , s t a te tha t “ac tion s have stopped .” The
harassm en t was a c losed book . Hous ton ’s comp lain t to
the genera l counse l was abou t Goddard ’s hand ling of
her comp lain t . Sh e to ld h im she shou ld no t have had to
shar e w i th Goddard persona l in forma t ion in order to ge t
act ion on he r comp la in t of hara ssmen t . (O f cou rse , she
d idn ’ t “have” to share any th in g ; a ll she had to do was to
fo llow the procedures spec ified by the hosp ita l, and no t
c la im ed to be inadequa te , for comp lain ing abou t harass –
m en t .)
A t a mee ting w ith Godda rd short ly after comp la in ing
to the gene ra l coun se l, Hou s ton secre tly recorded a con –
versa tion in wh ich Godd ard sa id : “ I have no prob lem
w i th anyone taking anyth ing to the lega l depa rtmen t bu t
I am jus t cur iou s when the s itua t ion was dea lt w i th
I though t it was dea lt w i th very effec t ive ly it was a
p os i t iv e ou tcom e . You got wha t you asked for . . . . I am
so rry that you fee l the w ay you fee l that as d ifficu lt . . . .
I fe l t like it was hand led w e l l bu t obv iou s ly you d idn ’ t

No . 07-2197

and you are en tit led to you r op in ion .” Hou ston rep lied :
“I sa id that at the end you hand led it co rrec tly after I to ld
you a ll the s tu f f and I stand o[n ] tha t .” No t ice of the
res truc tured job— a ha lf-t im e job in p lace of the tw o
quar ter -t im e jobs one of wh ich Hous ton had filled—w as
pos ted a few days la ter . Hous ton cou ld no t app ly for
the job because a ha lf-t im e job wou ld no t leave her
enough tim e for her college c lasses .
It s tra in s credu lity tha t Goddard wou ld h ave con –
verted two jobs for college k ids in to on e regu lar job (w ith
benefit s) me re ly to ge t rid of Hou ston becau se of the
la tter ’s c rit ic ism o f Godda rd ’s hand ling of her comp la in t
o f harassm en t . (Even tha t , as we sha l l see , wou ldn ’ t be
enough to crea te a pr im a fac ie case . H ou s ton was no t
com p lain ing tha t Goddard had failed to dea l effec tively
w ith sexua l harassm en t . There was no harassm en t after
she first con tac ted Goddard , and sh e acknow ledges tha t
“a t the end you hand led it correc t ly .” Tha t “end” cam e
w ith in hours o f H ous ton ’s f irst comp lain ing abou t harass –
m en t .) It is tru e t ha t the res truc tu r ing of the job cam e
hard on the hee ls o f the m ee ting (the one Hous ton
secre t ly recorded ) a t wh ich Godd ard expressed irri ta t ion
(who w ou ldn ’t? ) a t H ous ton ’s hav ing comp la ined to th e
genera l counse l . Bu t th er e is no evidence to con trad ic t
Godd ard ’s c la im tha t she in tended the res truc tur ing from
the s ta r t and tha t the de lay in imp lemen ta tion wa s due
to her hav ing more press ing m a t ters to a t tend to in her
new job .
The m a jority exp resses puzz lem en t that Goddard wou ld
pre fer hav ing one part -t im e emp loyee w i th bene fi ts to

No . 07-2197

two par t -t im e emp loyees w i thou t ben e f i ts , s ince bene fits
are an expense . Bu t her depar tmen ta l budge t a llow ed for
a part -t im e posi t ion w i th bene fits , and it made sense for
her to use the fund s allo t ted for tha t p os it ion before they
d isappeared in the n ex t budge t cyc le . The m a jor i ty ’s
con jecture is based on a governm en t report conce rn ing
average emp loyee bene f its , a repor t tha t m akes no refer-
ence to th e ben efits expen se of th e St . Joseph Reg iona l
M ed ica l Cen ter— obv iou s ly not a ll emp loye rs pay the
sam e benefit s . M oreove r , a part -t im e emp loyee who
rece ives bene fits is bound to be m ore depend ab le than
one who does no t , because par t -t im e jobs w i th bene fits
are tough to c om e by . “Part -t im e workers are much less
like ly
to have emp loym en t -based hea lth
insu rance
than fu ll-t im ers . . . . In 2004 , 18 .6 percen t o f p a rt -t im e
workers were covered by emp loym en t -based hea lth
bene fits through the ir own emp loyer, compared w i th
61 .5 percen t o f fu ll-tim e worke rs .” Emp loyee Ben efit
Research Ins t itu te , “EBR I N ew s : Grow ing Trend o f Part –
T im e W orkers Feed s In to Overa l l Dec l ine of U .S .
H ea l th Coverage ,” M ay 2 , 2006 , www .ebr i .org /pd f /
PR_735_2M ay06 .pd f (v is ited Aug . 22 , 2008 ); to sam e effec t ,
see Peter S . Fisher , E laine D its ler , Colin Gordon and Dav id
W es t , “N on standard Jobs , Sub standard Ben efits ,” Ju ly
2005 , pp . 15-22 , h t tp :/ /c fcw .org /Nons tandard .pd f (v is ited
Aug . 22 , 2008) . And it is preferab le from an em p loyer ’s
s tandpo in t to have one person do ing a job ra ther than
two sp lit ting it , wh ich comp licates supe rv is ion and in –
creases paperwork ( two separa te personne l f iles , e tc .).
H ou s ton po in ts ou t tha t a fter the h ir ing of a regu lar
em p loyee to do her job she was st ill ava ilab le for part -t im e

No . 07-2197

the regu lar emp loyee was som e t im es
work , s ince
swamped , bu t tha t Goddard gave her no wo rk . Bu t
Godd ard tes tified w i thou t con trad ic tion tha t her pract ice
w as to o ffer par t-t im e work to oth er r egu lar emp loyees
first—wh ich wou ld certa in ly be the norma l pract ice— and
tha t there wa s noth ing le ft over for the co llege k id s . (The
m a jor i ty op in ion odd ly de scr ibes th is as “b lack l is t[ ing]”
Hou ston .)
Hous ton argues tha t the fac t tha t Godd ard cons idered
he r rude and d is re spect fu l (notab ly in secre tly record ing
th eir conversa t ion in v io la t ion of Illinois law , 720 ILCS
5 /14 -2 (a )(1 )) is ev idence o f reta lia t ion . No ; it is ev idence
tha t Godd ard cons idered Hous ton rude and d isrespec t-
fu l— and an in fringer o f Goddard ’s legally pro tec ted
p rivacy righ ts and ungratefu l to boo t , for G oddard cou ld
have ins is ted tha t Hous ton fo llow the hosp i ta l’s prescribed
p rocedu re for comp la in ing abou t sexua l hara ssmen t , bu t
ins tead she cu t th e red tape and con fron ted the a lleged
harasser w ithou t requ iring Hous ton to f i le a comp lain t .
It is not a v io la t ion of T it le V II to re fuse to emp loy a
p er son whom you cons ider (whe ther or no t reasonab ly )
rude and d is re sp ec tfu l , bu t in any even t there is no evi-
dence tha t tha t was the m o t ive for the res truc tur ing .
The m a jority th inks it su sp iciou s that Goddard felt
“shocked” and “bew ildered” when she learned tha t
Hous ton h ad comp la ined abou t her to he r emp loyer ’s
lawyer. Tha t is the na tural hum an reac tion to a ground less
comp la in t to you r su p e r ior . The ma jor ity’s reason ing
p laces em p loyees such as P am Goddard in an impossib le
pos it ion : If the emp loyee reac ts ind ignan t ly to be ing

No . 07-2197

comp la ined abou t , th is is taken as evidence of re ta lia tion ;
bu t if she reac ts by adm it ting tha t the comp la in t abou t
her to her sup e r ior is ju s t ified , or by not p ro tes ting
seem s tac it ly to adm it tha t , she se ts herse lf and her com –
p an y up for a law su it (w ith the adm iss ion as ev idence )
for failing to hand le a cla im of sexual haras sm en t in
ac cordan ce w ith T itle V II .
The m a jor i ty bols ters its argum en t tha t Goddard w as
conduc t ing a vend e t ta aga ins t Hous ton by say ing that
a fter filling the res truc tured job Godd ard “den ied [Hous –
ton ] work hours , w a ited several m on ths , and then te rm i –
na ted her in Apr il for work ing insu ffic ien t hours (a flaw
that Goddard was ab le to enginee r herse lf) .” Bu t if
Goddard wan ted to p un ish Hou ston , a ll sh e had to do
w as no t g ive her an ass ignm en t . No work , no pay . Wha t
add itional ben efit d id Goddard ob ta in by form ally term i-
n a t ing her? W hy no t have le t her tw is t in the w ind ,
a lw ays hop ing she m igh t rece ive an ass ignm en t?
I conc lude tha t no reasonab le jury cou ld f ind a re ta l ia tory
m ot ive in Goddard ’s ac tions . Bu t i f I am w rong and it
cou ld , it cou ld not take the n ext s tep and find tha t the
reta lia t ion w as for s ta tu tor ily pro tec ted act iv ity , tha t is ,
for “oppos [ing ] any prac tice m ade an un law fu l em p loy –
m en t prac t ice by [T i tle V II] .” 42 U .S .C . § 2000e-3 (a ). Hous –
ton ’s on ly concern in comp lain ing to the general counse l
and repea t ing the comp lain t to Godd ard wa s w ith
Godd ard ’s no t hav ing acted un t il Hous ton told h er of
hav ing been the v ic t im of a sexua l assau lt prior to her
emp loym ent by the hosp ital . Hou ston wa s comp la in ing
to the genera l counse l no t o f hav ing been sexua lly harassed

No . 07-2197

(she m en t ioned the a lleg ed harassm en t on ly by way of
background , for tha t grievance had long s ince been re –
so lved ) , bu t o f Goddard ’s hand ling of the grievance . In
th e conve rsat ion w ith Goddard
that she sec re tly
recorded in v io la t ion o f Illino is law , Hous ton con f irm ed
that sh e h ad comp lained to the gen eral counse l on ly
becau se she d idn ’t like hav ing had to share “all th e s tu ff .”
(In fact she hadn ’t had to , as I noted ea r l ie r . ) Y e t she
took the in it ia t ive in sharing the in form a tion w ith the
gen era l counse l and now , in th is law su it , w ith th e wor ld .
The m a jority ’s s tatem en t tha t “ in e ffec t , [Hous ton ] was
ask in g [ the general counse l] to ensure tha t the ins t itu t ion
do som e th ing abou t sexua l harassm en t” is an unw arran ted
gloss on Hou ston ’s own vers ion of h er comp lain t (“ in
e ffec t” is the g iveaway ) . Hous ton was no t concerned
abou t sexua l harassm en t . The a lleged harassm en t was
h is tory , and there is no th ing to sugges t tha t she w as
concerned abou t ac tua l or po ten t ia l harassm en t of other
emp loyees . The s ta tem en t in a footno te of the m a jority
op in ion tha t “an emp loyee in the m id s t of comp la in ing
abou t und er ly ing harassm en t may w e ll w ish to cr it ic ize
the company ’s p rocedu re s a t the sam e t im e” thu s con ta in s
two er rors : Hou ston wa s not comp la in ing abou t be ing
h arassed— tha t comp la in t had been re so lved
long
ago— and sh e was no t comp la in ing abou t the company ’s
procedu res either . I canno t find any h in t tha t she w as
d issa t is fied w ith those p ro cedures . She does argue tha t
Goddard v io la ted them . The hosp ital’s an t ihara ssmen t
po licy (the on ly p o s sib le “p rocedu re s” to wh ich the
m a jority op in ion can be referr ing ) s ta tes tha t “If you
be lieve you or any o ther emp loyee is being sub jec ted to

No . 07-2197

conduc t or comm en ts tha t v io la te th is po l icy , you are
en cou raged and have a respon sib ility to imm ed iately
repor t these ma t ters to the Hum an Resources Depar t –
m en t . If for any reason you do no t fee l com fortab le report –
ing you r concerns to Hum an resources , you m ay repor t
your con cerns to the In tegrity O f ficer .” H ouston be lieved
that sh e had been harassed , and sh e th e r e fore had a
re sp ons ib ility to report the m a t ter no t to Goddard , bu t
to e ithe r the Hum an Resou rces Departmen t or the
In tegrity O f ficer . She d id no t fu l fill tha t respons ib ility .
Goddard , who d id no t w i tn es s the inc iden t tha t Hous ton
a lleged to be ha rassm en t , d id no t , wh en Hous ton first
spoke to her , be lieve that Hou ston had b e en harassed .
No t tha t she d isbe lieved it ; she jus t d idn ’t have ev idence
beyond H ou s ton ’s say -so. So the po licy d id not requ ire
her to repor t the m a t ter to the Hum an Resou rces Depar t-
m en t or the In tegr i ty Off icer .
No t ice also tha t Godd ard cou ld have comp l ied w ith
the an t iha ra s sm ent po licy
fu lly
ju s t by report ing
Hous ton ’s concern to the Hum an R esources Depar tm en t .
That wou ld have de layed remed ia tion . Goddard wen t ou t
of her way , by d irec t ly con fron t ing the a l leged haras ser ,
to m ake sure tha t the prob lem was reso lved imm ed ia tely .
The s ta tem en t in the m a jority op in ion tha t Hous ton
“sub jec tively felt that she had been sexual ly haras sed ,”
wh i le t rue , is irre levan t . She wa s not (I repea t) comp la in ing
abou t th e harasser . Sh e was com p la in ing abou t Goddard ,
who had not hara ssed her . If when Hou s ton m e t w i th the
gene ra l coun se l she w a s s till conce rned abou t be ing
sexua lly harassed , why d idn ’ t she te ll h im ? N or had

No . 07-2197

Godd ard failed to hand le H ous ton ’s comp lain t of sexua l
harassm en t proper ly . She had , as Hous ton concedes ,
ac ted correc t ly in th e end . And in the beg inn ing too; her
in it ia l re luc tance to take ac t ion h ad been reasonab le . W e
wa rned in M cDonnel l v . C isneros, 84 F .3d 256 , 260 -61 (7 th
C ir . 1996 ), aga ins t p lac ing superv isors on a razor ’s edge ,
where if they fa il to a c t prec ip i ta tely on a comp lain t of
sexual haras sm en t they are sued for v iola ting T itle V II ,
wh ile if they ac t prec ip i ta tely they are sued by the a lleged
harasser . “A lleged harassers . . . have brough t a num ber of
s tate comm on law c la im s , inc lud ing wrong fu l d ischarge ,
breach of con trac t , tor tious in terferen ce w i th an emp loy –
m en t con trac t , inva s ion o f pr ivacy, neg ligen t inves tiga –
t ion , in ten t iona l in terference w ith an emp loym en t re la –
t ionsh ip , de fam a t ion , libe l, and in ten t iona l in f lic t ion of
em ot ional d ist ress .” 1 A lba Con te , Sexua l H arassm en t in the
W orkp lace : Law and P ractice 703 -05 (3d ed . 2000) ; see also
Barbara L indem ann & Dav id D . Kadue , Sexua l H arass-
m en t in Em p loym en t Law 359-60 (1992) .
A t firs t Godda rd wa sn ’t sure tha t the inc iden t abou t
wh ich Hou ston w a s com p lain ing had been sexually
m o t iva ted , because Hous ton ’s ema il reques t ing the m ee t-
ing to d iscu ss i t had sa id tha t it was “not a rush” (tha t is ,
tha t there wa s no u rgency abou t Godda rd ’s m eet ing
w i th her) and because H ous ton w as unw illing to us e th e
hosp ita l’s prescribed procedure for repor ting sexua l
harassm en t . Short ly after the m ee ting w i th Goddard o f
wh ich Hou ston now comp la in s (the m eet ing in wh ich she
revea led the sexua l assau lt ), she em a iled Godd ard say ing :
“Thank you . . . so much for lis ten ing and unders tand ing .
You m ad e m e fee l a lo t m ore com fortab le when I le ft .

No . 07-2197

Thanks ( .” The statem ent in the m a jor ity op in ion tha t the
m eet ing to wh ich the em a il re fe rred wa s not abou t the
a lleged sexua l har assm en t is unpersuas ive in ligh t of
Hous ton ’s fa ilure to o ffer an a l te rna t ive exp lana t ion of
wha t the m ee ting was abou t .
Hous ton is not comp lain ing that Goddard in te rroga ted
he r abou t he r s exu a l h is tory in a way tha t m igh t d iscour-
age comp la in ts abou t sexua l hara ssmen t . T here wa s no
in terroga tion . The in forma t ion abou t a prev ious sexua l
assau lt was vo lun teered by Hous ton in order to prod
Goddard into what cou ld have tu rned ou t to be a p rec ip i-
ta te reac tion to the com p lain t . A s the m a jority pu ts it “In
re spon se [to Godda rd ’s re luc tance to speak to the
a l leged harasse r un less Hous ton f i led a form a l comp la in t ] ,
Hous ton revea led tha t sh e h ad b een a v ic t im of sexua l
as sau lt .”
Godd ard ’s reluc tance to ac t , un t il Hous ton vo lun teered
the in forma t ion suggest ive o f Hous ton ’s spec ia l sens it iv ity
to sexua l harassm en t , was no t on ly reasonab le bu t a lso
harm less , because no harassm en t occurred in the br ie f
in te rval (a m a tter of hou rs ) be tween Hou s ton ’s comp la in –
ing abou t the hara ssmen t and Godda rd ’s tak ing ac tion ,
conceded by Hous ton to have been e ffec t ive— in fac t i t
w as , as I no ted , beyond the ca ll of du ty .
The on ly possib le exp lanat ion for H ou ston ’s d ram at ic
sw erve from be ing p lea sed w i th Goddard ’s hand l ing of
the situa t ion
lit iga tion
to
(the sm iley -face em a il)
p lann ing , comp lete w ith an i l lega l secre t tape record ing ,
is tha t she saw tha t she w as abou t to lose he r job . O ther-
w ise the two -m on th in terva l be tw een the m ee ting w i th

No . 07-2197

Goddard tha t is the core of he r comp la in t abou t Goddard ’s
handling of the harassm en t gr ievance and the m ee ting w i th
the gene ra l coun se l makes no sense (and she reques ted and
m e t w ith the genera l counse l on the sam e day , so th e
d e lay was her doing , not h is) . Noth ing had happen ed in
between . W e know she knew abou t the job re st ruc tu r ing
by Sep tem ber 26 , and she m ay w e ll have got ten w ind of
it earlier— befo re the m ee ting w ith the gen eral counse l ,
wh ich took p lace on Sep tember 17 .
She c la im s not to have known tha t Godd ard had spoken
w i th the accu sed haras ser abou t the inc iden t . Bu t Goddard
had to ld Hou ston she wou ld do so , and why wou ldn ’ t
Hous ton e ither assum e she had or , i f uncerta in , check
w ith h er? It ’s no t as if th e harassm ent had con tinued ,
wh ich wou ld have suggested tha t Godd ard had no t
fo llowed th rough . On the con tra ry , the fact tha t the
harassm en t ceased shou ld have m ade Hous ton rea lize
tha t Godd ard had done as prom ised— as sh e had .
To say as the m a jor i ty op in ion does tha t Hous ton
“engaged in a statu tor ily p ro tec t ed ac tiv ity when she
com p la ined up the cha in o f comm and” is to equ ivocate .
H er comp lain t to Goddard abou t sexua l harassm en t was
p ro tec ted ; her comp la in t to the gene ra l coun se l abou t
Godd ard , and i ts r ep e t it ion to Godd ard in the recorded
conve rsat ion , were not . That is why , ev en i f Goddard d id
r es t ru ctu re th e job ju st in ord er to ge t rid of Hou ston
for hav ing crit ic ized her , her ac tion , wh ile it wou ld no t
have been n ice , cou ld not have v iola ted T itle V II .
Aga ins t th is the m a jority op in ion jus t c ites a d is tr ic t
cou rt d ec ision and rem arks that it m ust “ tak[e ] the fac ts in

No . 07-2197

the l igh t m os t favorab le to Hous ton .” Th e d is tr ic t cou r t
case is inappos ite (and anyway is not au thority ) because
the p la in t iff’s comp lain t in tha t case concerned the vio –
la tion of du t ie s imposed by T it le V I I, and there wa s no
v io la t ion of any such du ty in th is case . Hous ton com –
p la ined abou t hara ssmen t ; the ho sp ital re sponded ; the
ha rassm en t ceased . The ev idence tha t she was no t com –
p lain ing to the genera l counse l abou t prote c ted act iv ity
cons is ts of her own adm iss ions .
Suppose she had comp la ined to Godda rd abou t the
firs t inc iden t o f unw an ted at ten tion from the m ale
cowo rke r, Godda rd had done noth ing , and then the
second in c iden t had occu rred . Whe ther or no t Goddard
had ac ted reasonab ly in fa iling to p revent tha t second
inc iden t , H ou s ton cou ld not be fired for comp la in ing
abou t Godd ard ’s fa ilure ; for tha t fa i lure wou ld ra ise a
ques t ion abou t th e ad equacy of th e hosp ita l’s p rac t ic e s
or p rocedures for preven t ing sexua l harassm en t , and so
she wou ld no t have lacked a “reasonab le belie f” (whe ther
or not correc t) that the hosp ita l had vio lated T itle V II .
H er comp lain t wou ld be statu to rily p ro tec ted , e .g . ,
H o lland v . Jef ferson N a tiona l L ife Ins. Co ., 883 F .2d 1307 , 1315
(7 th C ir . 1989 ), because she wou ld be comp la in ing abou t
inac t ion , no t abou t insens it iv ity .
A ll tha t the hosp ita l “was requ ired to do in order to
sa t is fy its ob liga t ion s under T it le V II was to take p romp t
act ion reasonab ly ca lcu la ted to end the hara ssmen t and
reasonab ly like ly to preven t the condu c t from recurring .
The s tep s taken by [G oddard ] c lear ly sa t is fied th is s t an –
dard .” B erry v . D e lta A irlines , 260 F .3d 803 , 813 (7 th C ir .

No . 07-2197

2001) ; see also C erros v . Stee l Techno log ies , Inc ., 398 F .3d 944 ,
954 (7 th C ir . 2005) (“ the eff icacy of an emp loyer ’s
rem ed ia l ac tion is ma ter ia l to our de term ina t ion whe ther
the ac t ion was ‘reasonab ly like ly to preven t the harass-
m en t from recu rring’ ”) ; W i l l iam s v . W aste M anagem en t o f
I ll ino is , 361 F .3d 1021 , 1029 -30 (7 th C ir . 2004 ) (“ the ne t
resu l t [of a m ere verba l warn ing] was tha t W i ll iam s ’s
comp la in t wa s dea lt w i th w ith in twen ty -fou r hou rs , and
he exp er ienced no fur the r race-based haras sm en t”) ;
And reoli v . Ga tes , 482 F .3d 641 , 644 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2007) (“a
rem ed ia l ac tion tha t stops the harassm en t is ad equa te as
a m at te r of law ”) ; Swenson v . Po t ter , 271 F .3d 1184 , 1196 –
98 (9th C ir . 2001 ) ; Sp icer v . V i rg in ia , 66 F .3d 705 , 710 -11
(4 th C ir . 1995 ). No reasonab le pe rson wou ld have though t
tha t Godd ard had v io la ted T i t le V II by her hand l ing of
Hous ton ’s comp lain t ; the m a jority ’s con trary conc lu s ion
is incons is ten t w ith the case law .
M y co lleagues a re dece ived . Th is is not a ca se abou t
the sexua l ha ra ssmen t of an emp loyee , bu t abou t the
lit iga tion harassm en t of an emp loyer. The d is tric t judge
w as r igh t to end it .

9 -1 2 -0 8