Shannon Golat v. Audrey K. Skwierawski, et al.

Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in Shannon Golat’s action alleging a sex-based hostile work environment, retaliation, denial of reasonable accommodation, and equal-protection violations. The court held that the alleged sex-based comments and conduct were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support the hostile-work-environment and Equal Protection claims, and it upheld the rulings concerning Golat’s disability-accommodation allegations. The opinion also held that Golat’s sworn EEOC charge could be treated as an affidavit for summary-judgment purposes.

Holdings

1. The alleged sexist and sexual comments, although unprofessional, rude, and offensive, were not objectively severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Golat's employment and therefore did not establish a hostile work environment.
2. Because Golat could not establish a Title VII violation based on gender discrimination, summary judgment was also proper on her equal-protection claim under § 1983.
3. The defendants did not violate the Rehabilitation Act because the challenged measures either had no demonstrated connection to Golat's disability or constituted reasonable accommodations that allowed her to perform her essential job duties.
4. Golat's contact with the Rosolowskis to gather information for a potential EEOC charge was not protected participation under Title VII because no EEOC charge, proceeding, or investigation had begun when the contact occurred.
5. The travel-reimbursement investigation and written warning were not materially adverse employment actions, and the remaining adverse actions were not shown to be retaliatory because Golat could not establish pretext or but-for causation.
6. A sworn EEOC charge containing language substantially similar to a declaration under penalty of perjury may be treated as an affidavit for summary-judgment purposes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged sexist comments and conduct were sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim.
2. Whether the same conduct supported an equal-protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether requiring full-day sick leave for medical appointments, moving Golat's office, requiring transcription from a digital audio recording system, and denying assistance with transcripts violated the Rehabilitation Act.
4. Whether Golat's investigations, discipline, unpaid administrative leave, and nonrehiring decisions constituted retaliation for protected activity.
5. Whether Golat's contact with homicide-victim family members before filing an EEOC charge constituted protected participation under Title VII.

Disposition

affirmed