Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—7th Cir.: Summary judgment upheld where employee failed to present pay evidence, (Aug 26, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

She did not submit a male comparator’s pay stubs or records to support her pay disparity claim.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment in Cook County’s favor on an employee’s Title VII sex discrimination claim, the Seventh Circuit ruled the court applied the correct legal framework—the McDonnell Douglas factors—in analyzing her pay disparity claim where she sought to rely on similarly situated employees to establish an inference of discrimination. In addition, summary judgment was appropriate because she failed to provide evidence of a male comparator’s pay (Nelson v. County of Cook, No. 24-2123 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025)).

The employee worked at Provident Hospital, part of the Cook County Health and Hospital System, from 1997 until she voluntarily retired in 2010. Her first position was environmental services supervisor, which was later renamed building services supervisor. In 2004, she received a raise and promotion to the position of building custodian and remained in that position until her retirement.

Shared job duties. From 2002 until 2005, the employee was recognized to be the acting assistant director of environmental services, and the following year, she split the duties with a male building services supervisor. They performed these duties in addition to their regular job duties, with each performing different functions of the position. The former employee served as manager of operations while the male employee managed the administrative functions of the position.

Prior proceedings. In 2020, the employee filed Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims against Cook County, alleging she received discriminatory treatment on the basis of sex. She alleged she was paid less than similarly situated males. Her pay disparity claim focused solely on the period from 2002 to 2005. The district court granted summary judgment in Cook County’s favor on both claims. On appeal, she challenged summary judgment only on the Title VII claim.

Issues on appeal. The employee raised two challenges to the grant of summary judgment. First, she argued the district court considered her claim only under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis and failed to also apply the totality of the evidence approach set forth in Ortiz. Second, she contended the court erred in concluding the male building services supervisor was not a valid comparator.

Correct legal standard. Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Cook County’s favor, the Seventh Circuit found there was no support in the record for the argument that the court misunderstood the legal standard or failed to properly consider it. Because the former employee sought to rely on similarly situated employees to establish the inference of discrimination, the district court properly addressed whether that inference was supportable under the McDonnell Douglas factors.

The appeals court explained that the district court discussed the McDonnell Douglas factors at length because the former employee sought to rely upon the difference in pay between herself and other employees to provide an inference of discrimination sufficient to survive summary judgment. That approach employs the McDonnell Douglas framework to establish an inference of discrimination, and the district court properly focused on that test in assessing the former employee’s claim.

In fact, the appeals court said, the district court recognized that “in the wake of Ortiz, the McDonnell Douglas framework is just a formal way of analyzing a discrimination case when a certain kind of circumstantial evidence, evidence that similarly situated employees not in the plaintiff’s protected class were treated better, would permit a jury to infer discriminatory intent.”

No evidence of wage disparity. Turning to the former employee’s argument regarding similarly situated employees, the appeals court found her failure to provide evidence of the male building services supervisor’s compensation prevented a finding of disparate pay as to him. The district court held that she did not submit pay stubs or records for him that would support her claim of a disparity in compensation between them or would create a genuine issue of fact as to that issue. On that basis alone, the comparison with him could not support a claim of pay disparity. The district court proceeded to hold that even if she had submitted such evidence, he was still not a valid comparator. They performed different functions in a job they shared with vastly different duties, and they did not have comparable experience, education, or qualifications.

On appeal, the former employee addressed only the second argument and did not even acknowledge the court’s holding that she failed to provide evidence to support her claim of a pay disparity with the male employee. She did not point to any evidence in the record that would refute that holding by the district court. Because that holding was unchallenged on appeal and provided an independent basis to reject the comparison with the male employee, the Seventh Circuit said it did not need to address her challenge to the district court’s alternative holding that the two employees did not have similar jobs or qualifications. The failure to provide evidence of his compensation alone prevented a finding of disparate pay as to him, the court found.

Different jobs. Finally, the court addressed the former employee’s cursory references in her brief to two other alleged comparators, who each served as directors. She complained she was more capable than either of them of performing the director job, but that she never received the promotion and pay of a director. Her complaint, however, did not allege discrimination in promotions or hiring, but asserted only disparate pay for comparable work, and she did not assert that she ever applied for the director job.

As to her claim of disparate pay, the court properly held the two directors were not valid comparators. They each held a different position than she did, reported to a different supervisor, and were, in fact, her supervisors. As such, they were not engaged in materially similar jobs such that a difference in pay could evince discrimination.

Thus, finding that the district court applied the correct law and properly granted summary judgment in Cook County’s favor, the court affirmed the district court’s decision.

The case is No. 24-2123.

Judge: Rovner, L.

Attorneys: Joseph DiPasquale (Anthony J. Peraica & Associates) for Frankie Nelson. Kristina M. Gregory, Office of the Cook County State's Attorney, for County of Cook.

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews