Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—7th Cir.: Teacher failed to adduce evidence of workplace harassment on basis of age, (Sep 2, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The Supreme Court has long held that the phrase “conditions[] or privileges of employment” creates a cause of action for hostile work environment.

A school district was entitled to summary judgment against a teacher’s ADEA claim because she failed to adduce evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that she suffered workplace hostility based on her age, ruled the Seventh Circuit in affirming the judgment of a district court. The appeals court found that the employee had not offered sufficient evidence for a jury to find that age-based animus motivated any of the conduct about which she complained. Rather, the only evidence connecting the complained-of conduct to age-based animus was the employee’s own belief. Her testimony about her subjective belief did not satisfy her burden to provide “sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict that alleged harassment was based on [her] age” (Blumenshine v. Bloomington School District No. 87, No. 23-3250 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)).

Since 1989, the employee has worked for the public school district, primarily as a kindergarten teacher. Throughout her first 18 years teaching she was an exemplary teacher. However, the dynamic started to change on May 21, 2019, when the employee, then age 52, learned she was being involuntarily transferred to another school.

Alleged harassment. The transfer did not go smoothly. Thereafter, the employee identified four categories of harassment. She claimed that the school district: (1) assigned her a disproportionate number of behaviorally challenged students; (2) erroneously criticized her job performance; (3) made intentional efforts to sabotage her teaching efforts by not providing her with proper classroom support; and (4) employed an administrator who intimidated her on one occasion.

The employee believed she experienced this workplace harassment because of her age, even though no one ever made a statement denigrating her on the basis of her age. She pointed out that of the three kindergarten classes at her new location, hers was the most challenging. Further, she felt unfairly criticized, regarding her classroom “behavior management strategy,” and “extra recess” time for her class. Third, she claimed the school district denied her request for a full classroom aide to support her two IEP students. Last, the employee identified a confrontation with a “principal intern” at the school, wherein she felt threatened and “baited.”

Age claim. On August 13, 2021, the employee filed a complaint alleging that the school district unlawfully created a hostile work environment based on her age in violation of the ADEA. After discovery, the district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the employee failed to adduce evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that (1) the school district created an objectively hostile work environment, and that (2) she had not shown that the conditions she encountered were due to her age. The employee appealed.

HWE claims. As an initial matter, the Seventh Circuit addressed threshold dispute of whether the ADEA permits hostile work environment claims. The district court followed a line of Seventh Circuit cases that “have ‘assumed, but never decided, that plaintiffs may bring hostile work environment claims under the ADEA.’”

The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly assumed that hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the ADEA and for good reason. First the ADEA text provides that an employer may not “otherwise discriminate against any individual” who is 40 years of age or older “with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Identical clauses are featured in Title VII and the ADA. The Supreme Court has long held that this language creates a cause of action for hostile work environment.

Claims of age-based harassment. Nonetheless, the employee’s claim under the ADEA fails because she has not put forth any evidence of age-based harassment. To establish a hostile work environment claim based on her age, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) she was subject to unwelcome harassment, (2) the harassment was based on her [age], (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile or abusive atmosphere, and (4) there is a basis for employer liability.”

The appeals court found that the employee had not offered sufficient evidence for a jury to find that age-based animus motivated any of the conduct about which she complained. Rather, the only evidence connecting the complained-of conduct to age-based animus was the employee’s own belief. Her testimony about her subjective belief did not satisfy her burden to provide “sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict that alleged harassment was based on [her] age.” Besides her own belief, there is no evidence suggesting any conduct directed at the employee was age-based.

None of the evidence pointed to by the employee showed age-based animus. Though she suggested that her involuntary transfer should be interpreted as age discrimination, the uncontroverted evidence established that she was transferred as a lifeline for a struggling inexperienced teacher. Nor could the court infer age discrimination based on the actions of the staff at the new school. Rather, the principal’s performance review stemmed from a parent complaint and had no relationship to the employee’s age. Similarly, the school district’s denial of her IEP-related request on behalf of a student was irrelevant to the court’s ADEA analysis because there is no evidence linking it to the employee’s age.

Finally, the employee’s confrontation with the “principal intern” also did not support an inference of age discrimination. That incident, standing alone, did not permit an ADEA hostile work environment claim to survive summary judgment.

Accordingly, the school district was entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s ADEA claim, thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The case is No. 23-3250.

Judge: Maldonado, N.

Attorneys: John A. Baker (Baker, Baker & Krajewski) for Tanya Blumenshine. Marc R. Jacobs (Seyfarth Shaw) for Bloomington School District 87.

Companies: Bloomington School District No. 87

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews