For Title VII Claim to Stand, Delayed Training Must Damage Employment Terms or Conditions: Seventh Circuit | Practical Law

For Title VII Claim to Stand, Delayed Training Must Damage Employment Terms or Conditions: Seventh Circuit | Practical Law

In Chaib v. Indiana, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in this Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) gender and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation case bought by a former employee. Among other things, the Seventh Circuit held that for a disparate treatment denial of training claim to stand, the employee must alert the employer to the denial of training and provide evidence that the delay between the notice and the receipt of training damaged the terms or conditions of her employment.

For Title VII Claim to Stand, Delayed Training Must Damage Employment Terms or Conditions: Seventh Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 28 Feb 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Chaib v. Indiana, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in this Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) gender and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation case bought by a former employee. Among other things, the Seventh Circuit held that for a disparate treatment denial of training claim to stand, the employee must alert the employer to the denial of training and provide evidence that the delay between the notice and the receipt of training damaged the terms or conditions of her employment.
On February 24, 2014, in Chaib v. Indiana, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in this gender and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation case bought by a former employee. Among other things, the Seventh Circuit held that a denial of training claim will fail if the employee does not inform her employer that she was not receiving the required training and if the employee eventually received the required training. The court held that the employee must show that a delay between the notice to the employer and the receipt of training damaged the terms or conditions of her employment. (13-1680, (7th Cir. Feb. 24, 2014).)

Background

Nora Chaib, a female US citizen of French national origin, worked as a corrections officer for the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) from 2008 until she tendered her resignation in 2011. Chaib then sued her former employer, the State of Indiana, alleging that while working as a corrections officer for the IDOC she was:
  • Subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment because of her gender and national origin in violation of Title VII. In particular, Chaib claimed that the officer responsible for her training stopped that training after she complained to him about his sexually offensive remarks, although she eventually received the training from another officer.
  • Retaliated against when she complained of the alleged harassment.
The district court granted summary judgment to the IDOC on all of Chaib's claims, holding, among other things, that Chaib failed to show an adverse employment action resulting from employer discrimination.
Chaib appealed to the Seventh Circuit. In her appeal, Chaib identified the following adverse employment actions she contends resulted from employer discrimination:
  • That she was denied training.
  • That her request to transfer to the Correctional Industrial Facility (CIF), a different correctional facility holding inmates convicted of less serious crimes, was rejected.
  • That she received a poor performance review.

Outcome

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to IDOC on each of Chaib's claims. Of particular note, although circuit precedent holds that the denial of training may be an adverse employment action, it was not here because:
  • The employee admitted that she failed to alert the employer that she was denied training.
  • The employee ultimately received the training before her probationary period ended.
Furthermore, consistent with precedent, the Seventh Circuit found that:
  • There is no adverse employment action where an employer:
    • gives an employee a poor performance review without more;
    • gives an employee a reprimand without more; or
    • denies a requested transfer, and the employee either fails to show that the other position would materially improve her employment terms and conditions, or asserts without evidence that the current job requires the employee to work in a hostile work environment.
  • Affirmed dismissal of discrimination and retaliation claims for the additional reasons that the employee failed to produce direct or indirect evidence of discrimination or retaliation.
  • Affirmed dismissal of the hostile work environment claim because there was no evidence of supervisor involvement or notice.

Practical Implications

The Seventh Circuit holds that an employee must provide notice to the employer for a denial of training adverse employment action claim. The Seventh Circuit also finds that a claim of lack of training is really a delay of training claim, if the training is ultimately provided. To make a delay of training an adverse employment action claim, an employee must show that any delay between the notice to an employer and the receipt of training materially changed the terms or conditions of her employment.