# Jones v. National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of the United States of America

> District Court, N.D. Illinois · June 18, 2014 · 48 F. Supp. 3d 1054

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7226826

## Case

- **Full name:** James JONES, Nicole Steels, Kavon Ward, and Iona Toles v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ("YMCA of the USA"), an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and Elinor Hite, former Senior Vice President of YMCA of the USA
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** June 18, 2014
- **Citations:** 48 F. Supp. 3d 1054; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82709; 2014 WL 2781579
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Tharp
- **Judges:** Tharp
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7226826

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a supervisor’s correction of an employee’s grammar in front of employees “[did] not point directly to an unlawful racial animus”

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
John J. Tharp, Jr., United States District Judge
Plaintiffs James Jones, Nicole Steels, Kavon Ward, and Iona Toles have filed this suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated employees of the National Council of Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States of America (the ‘Y”), alleging claims of race discrimination and retaliation against the Y and Elinor Hite, the former director of the Y’s human resources (“HR”) department, pursuant to Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., and the D.C. Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq. Now before the Court are the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on 'the claims asserted by each plaintiff in the fourth amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
The following account of the facts is taken from the record and the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses. On a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, see Hanners v. Trent, 674 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 578 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2009)), and “gives [the plaintiffs] the benefit of conflicts in the admissible evidence and favorable inferences from that evidence.” Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir.2012) (citing O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011)). However, the Court may only con *1066 sider “admissible evidence in assessing a motion for summary judgment.” Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir.2009) (citing Haywood v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 323 F.3d-524, 533 (7th Cir.2003) (inadmissible evidence will not overcome a motion for summary judgment)).
A. James Jones
Plaintiff James Jones was hired on or about August 25, 2004, by Steven Tim-mons, the Y’s Strategic Director of HR at the time. 1 Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 23, ¶ 29; Pl.’s Add’l Facts, Dkt. 312 at 62, ¶ 3. Jones was hired to assume the duties and responsibilities of Director of Training and Organizational Development (“OD”), the position Jones held until his employment was terminated by the Y on or about October 15, 2007. PL’s 56.1 Resp., at 47, ¶ 62.' As Director of Training and OD, Jones was responsible for “rolling out” and conducting training for Y employees. Defs. 56.1 Stmt., Dkt. 270 at 12, ¶ 29. Although Jones disputes that Timmons was solely responsible for hiring him because, as Jones contends, “all hires [had to] be approved by [the Y’s] leadership team ... or CEO,” Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 24 (response to ¶ 29), it is undisputed that Tim-mons was Jones’ first supervisor. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 4, ¶ 5.
Jones alleges that during his time at the Y he was subjected to racial discrimination (he is an African American) with respect to his level of compensation and the salary raises he received from the Y to bring his compensation in line with professionals in comparable positions (“equity salary increases”), the Y’s failure to promote him, the compensation he received for serving as the interim Director of HR, his annual ■ performance evaluations and merit pay increases, and his termination in October of 2007. He also complains that the Y retaliated against him for engaging in protected activities, which generally involve the concerns he expressed to Hite about the Y’s policies and culture negatively impacting minority employees.
1. Compensation, Performance Evaluations, and Merit Increases
Jones’ starting salary was set at $80,016. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 30, ¶ 40. Jones told Timmons, before and after he was hired, that he felt his starting salary was too low, potentially because he was African American. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 5, ¶ 8. As evidence of the disparity in his starting salary, Jones points to two other Caucasian, director-level employees, who were earning higher salaries than him when he was hired and throughout his employment at the Y. First, Sharon Ra-kowski, a director in HR, was earning a salary of $93,672, when Jones was hired. 2 Id. at 4, ¶ 6. Second, Kurt Kramer received a starting salary of $130,008, id. at 6, ¶ 10, and was hired into the ‘Y-University” department as Director of Program Leadership and National Training approximately one or two months before Jones was hired into HR. Id. at 5, ¶ 7.
In a memorandum dated April 12, 2005, Timmons recommended that Jones’ salary be increased to $98,500. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 32, ¶ 41; Pl. 56.1 App., Dkt. *1067 326-39, Tab 85a (“Human Resources Equity Review and Adjustments”). Timmons based his recommendation on a comparison of Jones’ salary to internal and external data, and determined that the closest comparator to Jones’ position, internally, was Kramer’s position, Director of Program Leadership and Training. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 6, ¶ 9. 3 As a result, on May 1, 2005, Jones received an “equity raise,” increasing his salary to $100,008, which Timmons was involved in securing. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 32, ¶ 41.
That same year, Jones also received a “merit” salary increase. At the Y, annual merit increases were assigned as percentages of an employee’s existing salary, based on a range correlated to the performance rating that the employee received for that year. Id. at 12-13, ¶ 17. The Y’s 2005 fiscal year ran from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. Id. Under the 2005 guidelines, the merit increase ranges were assigned to performance ratings as follows:
Rating Increase Range
Far Exceeds [Expectations]............5% - 6%
Exceeds [Expectations].................3.1% - 4.9%
Meets Expectations.....................1% - 3%
Below Expectations.....................0%
Id. at 13. In September 2005, Jones received a 3% merit increase, which corresponded to a “meets expectations” performance review, according to the 2005 guidelines. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 32, ¶ 42.
Timmons resigned on or about June 3, 2005. Id. at 24, ¶ 30. 4 Thereafter, Jones served as the interim director of HR until approximately August 15, 2005. Id. During his time as interim director, Jones sought a salary increase from Dan Nuss-baum, the Strategic Director of Y-University, and Ken Gladish, the Y’s CEO at the time, to compensate for his additional duties and responsibilities. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 7, ¶ 12. Although Jones did not receive additional compensation while he was serving as the interim director, id, he did receive a one-time bonus of $7,616 on August 30, 2005. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 38, ¶ 54. The parties do not dispute that the bonus Jones received was larger than the standard bonus awarded for serving in an interim position, 5 but Jones alleges that his interim bonus was *1068 discriminatory, in part, because of the delay in paying it. Id. at 39, ¶ 56. According to Jones, the Y’s culture was one in which “a certain thing happens ... without prompting or any begging ... [for] one group and it happens when the other ... group is kicking and screaming and jumping through hoops to get it done.” Id.
On August 15, 2005, Elinor Hite assumed the full-time position of Director of HR and OD, and Jones resumed his duties as Director of Training and OD. From that point on, Jones reported to Hite. Id. at 24, ¶ 30. It is undisputed that Jones never pursued another position at the Y during his employment with the organization. Id. at 25, ¶ 31.
In mid-2005, before Hite took over as the director of HR, the Y’s HR department conducted a compensation equity review. 6 Id. at 17, ¶ 22. The equity review was conducted to address, among other concerns, a lack of established or formal guidelines relating to salary administration and equity among positions. Id. The review involved three stages. Id. at 17, ¶ 23. First, HR reviewed all job descriptions and identified fifty benchmark positions representing 70% of the organization. Id. Next, the Y hired an external consultant, Hewitt Associates, Inc., to perform a market study of the benchmark positions (“Hewitt Study”). Id. at 17-18, ¶ 23. Finally, using the data from the market study, the Y established (1) salary bands and job grades; (2) job families and hierarchy; (3) policies and procedures for salary administration; (4) communication plans for all levels of the Company; and (5) training for managers. Id. at 18, ¶ 23.
In January 2006, as a result of the 2005 compensation study, Jones received a second equity increase, which brought his salary up to $115,008. Id. at 33, ¶ 43. Jones, however, complained that the equity increase he received was lower than the increase he should have received under the “Hewitt [S]tudy recommendations.” Id. That same year, Jones continued to seek equity increases in an attempt to bring his salary in line with those he believed to be similarly-situated staff members. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 7, ¶ 13. On or about July 2, 2006, Jones sent Hite a memorandum titled “Salary Adjustment-Director, Organizational Development,” in which he requested a raise. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 34, ¶ 45. In that memorandum, Jones provided “benchmarks” for his own salary, which consisted of external data from third-party sources and internal data relating to two Y directors: Laura Fortson and Kramer. 7 Id.
*1069 Jones acknowledges that his request for an equity raise was granted, in part, through the merit increase he received for fiscal year 2006, in addition to a lump sum payment. Id. at 37, ¶ 51. Specifically, Jones received a 5.5% merit increase, the largest in HR for that year, and an additional $2,500. Id. at 37, ¶ 51. This raise increased Jones’ salary to $123,844. Id. The Y’s fiscal year for 2006 ran from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006. Id. at 13, ¶ 18. Under the guidelines for 2006, the following merit'increase ranges were assigned to performance ratings as follows:
Rating Increase Range
Far Exceeds [Expectations]............5.5% - 7.0%
Exceeds [Expectations].................3.5% - 5.5%
Meets Expectations.....................0.5% - 3.5%
Below Expectations.....................0%
Id. at 13-14, ¶ 18. Approved increases were effective September 1, 2006. Id.
In September 2007, Jones received a 3% merit raise, which increased his salary to $127,704. Id. at 37, ¶ 52. The Y’s fiscal year for 2007 ran from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. Id. at 14, ¶ 19. Under the guidelines for 2007, the following merit increase ranges were assigned to performance ratings as follows:
Rating Increase Range
Far Exceeds [Expectations]............5.0% - 6.5%
Exceeds [Expectations].................3.25% - 5.25%
Meets Expectations.....................1.0% - 3.5%
Below Expectations.....................0%
Id. at 16, ¶ 20. Approved increases were effective September 1, 2007. Id.
2. Position Elimination
In late June 2006, Neil Nicoll took over as the Y’s CEO. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 8, ¶ 15. During his first 90 days on the job, Nicoll directed Hite to reduce the headcount in the HR department. Id. The defendants assert that during the first or second quarter of 2007, Hite informed Nicoll that she was going to eliminate Jones’ position in order to reduce headcount, in accordance with Nicoll’s directive. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 43, ¶ 59. According to Hite, the position elimination was postponed, however, to allow Jones to take medical leave (approximately March 16 to June 22, 2007), then bereavement leave (October 1 to October 4, 2007), and finally, so that Jones could participate in an interview with Robert Casey (on October 10, 2007), an attorney with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. (“Ogletree”), hired by the Y to investigate Steels’ complaint of a hostile and intimidating work environment (explained below). Id. at 43, ¶ 59; at 45, ¶ 60; Def. Resp., Dkt. 375 at 12, ¶ 21. Jones’ employment was terminated on October 15, 2007, five days after he was interviewed by the law firm. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 47, ¶ 62.
Jones alleges that Hite’s decision to eliminate his position, and thereby terminate his employment, was both discriminatory and in retaliation for the protected activities that he engaged in during the final months of his employment in 2007. Jones’ retaliation claim hinges, in part, on the timing of Hite’s decision — specifically, if the decision to eliminate his position was made prior to Jones’ protected activities, *1070 Hite’s decision could not have been made in retaliation for those protected activities. To that end, Jones disputes the timing of Hite’s decision to eliminate his position, citing evidence that suggests Hite did not make the decision to terminate his position until much later in the year, after he had raised concerns about the effect of the Y’s policies on minority employees. For instance, at some point between January 2007, and April 2007, when Jones took medical leave, Hite discussed expanding Jones’ job responsibilities to include training local YMCA branches and associations. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 11, ¶20 (citing Jones Deck, Dkt. 325-30, Tab 30 at ¶ 9). After that initial discussion, however, Hite never mentioned the opportunity again. Id.
Hite also testified that, as of May 2007, she “had no intentional name in mind” for a further position elimination. Id. at 11-12, ¶ 21. Moreover, on May 12, 2007, while Jones was on medical leave, Hite drafted a chart detailing possible ways to reorganize the HR department. Id. (citing PI. 56.1 App., Dkt. 326-4, Tab 54 (“Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 205”)). In a box on the chart titled “what if,” Jones’ initials (“JNJ”) appear. Id. at 12, ¶ 23. Next to that box, under the title “concerns,” Hite again wrote “JNJ” and “very solid OD skills + HR generalist skills.” Id. According to Jones, this is evidence that, at least at that point, Hite was considering keeping Jones, and had included him in her possible reorganization scenarios. Moreover, Jones contends that Hite noted the race of each employee next to their corresponding positions on the chart. For example, next to the draft organizational tree, under the title “staffing thoughts” at the top of the memo, Hite wrote “WF” and “BM” next to two positions. Id. According to Jones, these are abbreviations for “white female” and “black male,” respectively. Id. Hite testified that she could not recall why she had written “WF” and “BM” on the chart. See Hite’s Dep., PI. App., Dkt. 362, Tab 8 at 465:7-12; see also id. at 465:7-12 (testimony that she was “not quite sure what [she] was doing there” with respect to writing “BM” on the chart).
Based on this evidence, Jones argues that a fact finder could infer that Hite did not decide to eliminate his position until September or October 2007. Resp., Dkt. 334 at 23. In a declaration attached to his response to summary judgment, however, Jones states that “[w]hen [he] met with Ms. Hite in late August 2007 to discuss [his] review, she did mention my position would be eliminated.” Jones’ Deck, PI. App., Dkt. 325, Tab 30 at ¶ 16.
On or about October 15, 2007, Jones was terminated. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 47, ¶ 62. Hite told Jones that his termination was in connection with the elimination of a position, and that the position elimination was part of a reorganization necessary for budget cuts. Id. at 49, ¶ 63; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at .19, ¶ 34. Moreover, Jones believed that the budget cuts were mandated by the CEO. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 49, ¶ 63. At the time, Hite asked Jones if he had any questions, and Jones said he did not. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 19, ¶ 34.
Jones contends that the justification for his termination is dubious, however, based on, among other things, the culture and environment in the HR department, the allegedly discriminatory performance evaluations and merit increases he had received, the allegedly discriminatory hiring decisions he had observed, and Steels’ pending complaint of discrimination. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 49-50, ¶ 64. Jones also questions the honesty of Hite’s explanation based on the manner in which Hite purportedly investigated Maurice Horsey’s *1071 (an African American employee) 2006 complaint of harassment and racial discrimination against Jim Kauffman, Horsey’s supervisor. Id. at 52, ¶ 65. Horsey told Hite that he felt his performance review was “very, very subjective,” and that Kauffman had made “slurs and jokes” at his expense. Id. During the investigation, however, Hite relayed to Jones that Nicoll believed Horsey was a poor performer and lazy. Id. Moreover, Hite never inquired about Horsey’s complaints of slurs and jokes, but only addressed the issues with Horsey’s performance evaluations. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 10, ¶ 18. According to Jones, he objected to the discriminatory manner in which he believed Horsey was being treated, and questioned whether Nicoll had ever worked with Horsey, and therefore, whether Nicoll was in a position to evaluate his work ethic. Id.
Jones also challenges the explanation he was given for his termination because he believed that Veronica Robertson had been given the same explanation for her termination, which, according to Jones, was not accurate. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 53, ¶ 67. Robertson was purportedly terminated in connection with Nieoll’s directive to reduce the budget and headcount in HR. However, after Robertson was terminated, Hite hired another employee, Emily Rutkowski (a white female), who assumed the same responsibilities as Robertson, meaning that neither the budget nor headcount were reduced. Id. at 54. Moreover, Rutkowski was paid a signing bonus because her start date was delayed while Robertson’s termination was being effectuated. Id. Similarly, on October 25, 2007, after Jones’ termination, Hite sent Steels an email about posting an opening for a Senior HR Generalist position, Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 22, ¶ 40, despite the fact that the justification for Jones’ termination was to reduce headcount in HR. A few weeks later, Hite emailed Nicoll, notifying him that she had found “an excellent candidate” for that position, and stating that the candidate was “Hispanic.” Id.
Jones also points to direct evidence that Hite improperly considered race while deciding how to reorganize the HR department. Specifically, sometime prior to Jones’ termination, Hite also created an “HR/OD” chart that reflected Hite’s “Desired State” for the department “effective” November 1, 2007. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 19, ¶ 35 (citing Pl. 56.1 App., Dkt. 326-3, Tab 53 (“Plaintiffs Deposition Exhibit 204”)). In handwritten notes, under the portion of the reorganization chart depicting HR as it was “desired,” Hite wrote a number of “issues” that she was considering. Id. These issues included “leave,” “potential,” “passion,” “cost,” and “effectiveness.” Id. The first issue listed, however, was “race.” Id. Moreover, in her deposition, Hite testified that she “always look[ed] at multiple factors whenever [she’s] reorganizing ... like job capabilities and race and gender.” Id. Hite did not explain why she wrote “race” as an issue on the chart. Hite’s Dep., PLApp., Dkt. 362, Tab 8 at 494:20-25; 495:1-25.
The parties also dispute whether Jones’ responsibilities were absorbed by employees not within his protected group (African American), which, as explained in detail below, is necessary to demonstrate racial discrimination in a claim involving a mini-reduction-in-force (“RIF”). The defendants contend that after Jones was terminated, his duties were absorbed by the HR department generally. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 47, ¶ 62. Jones disputes this, but fails to support his contention with relevant and admissible evidence, other than a single citation to testimony by Hite, in which she states that Jones’ “functions could be re-designated or not done within *1072 the HR department.” 8 See id. at 48. The remainder of Jones’ citations are irrelevant, referring generally to an open position for an HR generalist, and not to whether his duties were absorbed by HR, another department, or any other select number of employees not in his protected group. 9 Id. at 48^9.
After his termination, Jones signed and filed an EEOC charge, alleging race discrimination, on June 6, 2008. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 23, ¶ 42. The EEOC received the complaint on June 17, 2008. 10 Id.
3. Protected Activities and Retaliation
Jones alleges that Hite and the Y retaliated against him for engaging in protected activities during his employment. In 2006, Jones questioned and called for an adverse impact review of the merit system 11 and “interven[ed] to push for individual changes when questions were raised by individuals regarding their” merit increases. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 56, ¶ 72. In 2007, Jones objected to the initial findings of Horsey’s investigation (described above). Id. Jones also reviewed the merit increases for 2007, Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 16, ¶ 29, and on September 8, 2007, sent Steels an email titled “Merit Increases,” in which he stated that he had received “a couple questions” from the staff regarding the increases (“September 8 email”). PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 56-57, ¶ 73. In that email, Jones expressed a concern that upcoming “layoffs will probably impact minorities and older workers more than others” if the Y “follow[ed] their [then] current pattern,” in addition to concerns he had with merit increases for that year. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 16, ¶29. According to Jones, his email was meánt to convey the message that “there seemed to be some glaring inequities and [they] needfed] to follow up to determine whether there really [were] inequities or [whether] there [was] another explanation for those numbers.” Id. Steels responded to this email, copying Hite, with data regarding the percentages of African Americans and the merit increases they had received. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 57, ¶ 74.
*1073 Jones also claims he engaged in protected activity when he (1) had a conversation with Hite regarding the findings and data in the September 8 email, (2) had a conversation with Hite regarding racial tensions in HR, (3) opposed Emily Gondek’s (a Caucasian Senior HR Generalist) proposed referral program, which, according to Jones would have disadvantaged minority employees, and (4) followed up on concerns in the strategic sourcing department regarding promotion and compensation issues that negatively impacted minorities. Id. at 58, ¶ 75.
According to Jones, he also discussed specific employee merit increases with Hite after the September 8 email. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 17, ¶31. For example, Jones brought up a situation involving an African American woman, Phyllis Lee. Id. According to Jones, “even though ... Lee’s managers had approved a certain level [merit] increase ... Hite refused to award it.” Jones Deck, Dkt. 325, Tab 30 at ¶ 19. Jones told Hite that what happened to Lee was wrong, and that the incident could easily be considered racial discrimination, given how Lee had been treated. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 17, ¶ 31. According to Jones, after this discussion, Hite accused him of encouraging people to sue the Y. Id. at 17, ¶ 31. Hite, however, denies making this statement. Id.
Furthermore, according to Jones, the conversation he had concerning racial tensions with Hite involved the way that Hite treated Steels and Yvonne Bibbs, another African American employee in HR. Id. at 13, ¶ 24. In particular, Jones believed that Hite treated Steels and Bibbs in a way that was based on stereotypes of African Americans. Id. at 13, ¶ 25. For instance, both Steels and Bibbs were single mothers, and Hite asked Jones whether all of Steels’ children were from the same father and noted that neither woman was married. Id. According to Jones, Hite also appeared surprised when African Americans were articulate. Id.
Jones was also concerned because during a weekly meeting he had with Hite in August or September of 2007, Hite told him that there would be a change at the front desk, where Iona Toles, an African American woman, worked as a receptionist. Id. at 15, ¶ 28. Toles’ nickname was “the voice of the Y,” because even when she did not answer the phone, her voice was on the pre-recorded greeting. Id. Jones later discovered, after his termination, that Toles was replaced with a young Caucasian . woman. Id. Finally,' Jones claims that he engaged in protected activity when he took part in the Ogletree investigation of Steels’ complaint on October 10, 2007. Id. at 18, ¶ 33; PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 58, ¶ 76.
Jones maintains that Hite retaliated against him for these actions during the six months prior to his termination. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 59, ¶ 78. Examples of Hite’s retaliation, as alleged by Jones, include: (1) accusing him of encouraging people to sue the Y; (2) instituting a “documentation campaign” designed to “set up discipline,” but that did not actually result in discipline, (3) inhibiting Jones’ ability to perform his job by restricting his contact with senior leadership, and (4) changing her level of supervision and telling the employees under Jones not to bring their issues to him. Id. Further, Jones believes that his final performance review and, as explained above, the eventual elimination of his position, were retaliatory. Id. at 60, ¶ 79. As evidence that his position elimination was retaliatory, Jones notes that, shortly after his termination, another individual was hired to fill a position substantially similar to his own. Id. at 60, ¶ 80.
*1074 As evidence of retaliatory motive, Jones also points to notes that Hite wrote in September 2007, describing Jones as “divisive,” “insubordinate,” and “argumentative.” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 375 at 17, ¶ 32. Hite contends that at least part of that feedback was from Dennis Cruckson, in the form of emails attached to the notes. Id. at 18, ¶ 32. Hite also asked Jones why African American employees approached him when they had problems, and then instructed Jones to go to her first before talking to Y leadership team members. Id.
B. Nicole Steels
Steels and Jones worked in the HR department during roughly the same period, and their claims derive from and rely on much of the same evidence. 12 Steels worked at the Y from approximately November 1999 until October'2008, when she resigned. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 3, ¶ 3. From November 29, 1999, until August 2001, Steels worked as a Benefits Administrator. Id. In August 2001, the Y promoted Steels to HR Generalist. Id.; PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 16, ¶24. ' She held that position until May 2005, when she was promoted to Senior HR Generalist. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 16-17, ¶ 26. Overall, during her employment with the Y, Steels received two promotions. Id. at 31, ¶46. Additionally, Steels earned a master’s degree in human resource management in 2002, was certified as a “Senior Professional in Human Resources” (“SPHR”) prior to the end of her employment with the Y, 13 and earned a SPHR certification in 2007. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 3, ¶ 3.
Steels alleges that the Y discriminated against her based on her race with regard to compensation, performance evaluations, merit and equity increases, failure to promote, and a refusal, by Hite, to allow her to telecommute after her maternity leave. Steels also alleges that Hite created a “hostile and intimidating” work environment, id. at 4, ¶ 5, which, among other factors, ultimately resulted in the Y constructively discharging her and retaliating against her for engaging in protected activities.
1. Compensation, Performance Evaluations, and Merit Increases
Steels claims that the compensation, performance evaluations, and equity and merit increases she received- as a Senior HR Generalist were discriminatory. See, e.g., PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 25, ¶ 38. In particular, Steels claims that her performance ratings and compensation were dis-criminatorily low when compared to the salaries and merit increases of Emily Gon-dek, Michelle VanDeventer, and Lourdes Durren, all of whom also worked in HR, as well as other unidentified Y employees who worked outside of HR. Id. More generally, Steels claims that Hite failed to timely complete and provide her with evaluations so that she was aware of Hite’s expectations. See generally Defs. 56.1 *1075 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 11-12, ¶ 18; 12-13, ¶20; 14, ¶24.
As of January 2004, Steels was earning a salary of $48,696. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 24, ¶ 35. After her promotion to Senior HR Generalist in May 2005, her salary was increased to $58,008. Id. Steels also received a 3% merit increase on September 1, 2005, which brought her salary to $59,760. Id. In comparison, Gon-dek was hired in November 2005 as a Senior HR Generalist at an annual salary of $70,000. Id. at 26, ¶ 40. VanDeventer began working in the HR department as a Project Coordinator at an annual salary of $42,500. Id. at 28, ¶ 41.
Around January 16, 2006, Steels received an equity salary increase, which brought her salary to $68,712. Id. at 24, ¶ 36. For fiscal year 2006, Steels received a performance rating of “meets expectations” and a merit increase of 2.9%. Id. at 20, ¶ 30; id. at 25, ¶ 36. That merit increase brought Steels’ salary to $70,728. Id. at 25, ¶ 36. That same year, Gondek received a rating of “exceeds expectations,” id. at 23, ¶ 33, and a merit increase of 4%. Id. at 26, ¶ 40. Moreover, VanDe-venter received a 4.25% merit increase, which corresponded to a performance rating of “exceeds expectations.” Id. at 28, 41. This raise increased VanDeventer’s salary to $49,656. Id.
For 2007, Hite gave Steels a rating of “meets expectations” and a merit increase of 3.8%. 14 Id. at 21, ¶ 31; id. at 25, ¶'37. At that point, Steels’ salary was $73,080. That year, Gondek received a 3.3% merit increase, which corresponded to a rating of “meets expectations.” Id. at 23. In September 2007, VanDeventer received a rating of “exceeds expectations” in a review that was prepared by both Hite and Jones. Id. She also received a 4.5% merit increase, which increased her annual salary to $51,912. Id. at 28, ¶ 41.
In approximately April 2007, Gondek became a part-time employee and her salary was reduced by 80 percent. Id. at 26-28, ¶ 40. On approximately January 1, 2008, Hite hired Lourdes Durren, a Hispanic woman, as a Senior HR Generalist. Id. at 28, ¶ 42. Durren’s starting salary was $78,000, which was higher than Steels’ salary at the time ($73,080). Id. Durren worked for the Y for approximately four months and did not receive a salary increase during her time with the Y. Id. at 29, ¶43.
In March 2008, the Y posted another opening for a Senior HR Generalist, with a starting salary range of $75,000 to $92,000, which again, was higher than Steels was earning at the time. Id. at 30, ¶ 44. According to Steels, the Y placed this opening “on hold,” and eventually withdrew it all together after Jones cited it as an example of discrimination in his EEOC charge, which he filed after his termination. Id. at 30, ¶ 44.
Steels also claims that the Y discriminated against her by failing to promote her, while promoting other employees in HR. For example, in May 2008, Hite promoted VanDeventer to the position of HR/OD System Supervisor. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 32, ¶ 47. Along with the new position, VanDeventer’s salary was increased to $57,800. Id. Steels claims that she was not aware of this position (though as discussed infra, it is not at all clear why Steels would have been interest *1076 ed in pursuing this position, which paid substantially less than she was already making). Id. Similarly, after Hite’s resignation, the Y hired Carolyn Creager, an African American woman, to act as interim director of HR in September 2008. Id. at 32, ¶ 48. At the time she was hired, however, Creager had approximately 25 years of HR experience. Id. Finally, Steels alleges that, in an attempt to remedy past discrimination, the Y gave her a retroactive 1% salary increase in early October 2008. Id. at 30, ¶ 45. According to Steels, however, this increase was too little too late, and was “nothing in comparison” to the salary she actually deserved. Id.
2. Telecommuting
Steels alleges that Hite also discriminated against her by refusing to allow her to telecommute in 2007 and 2008, while allowing Gondek to telecommute from another state. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at'33, II49. It is undisputed, however, that shortly after Hite became Steels’ supervisor in August 2005, she allowed Steels to work from home for an extended period (possibly as long as one year, though the record is not entirely clear). Id. at 34, ¶ 50. And after Steels returned from maternity leave in March 2007, Hite allowed her to work from home one day per week for two months. Id.
However, on April 30, 2007, Hite informed Steels that she needed to return to working in the office full time. Id. at 34, ¶ 51. In comparison, and as explained above, two weeks after returning from maternity leave, on April 1, 2007, Gondek became a part-time employee, earned only 20% of her annual salary, and was allowed to work from home one day per week. Id. at 34, ¶ 52. Then in August of the same year, Gondek moved to Philadelphia and began working remotely. Id. At that time, however, Gondek stopped acting as a Senior HR Generalist, and only worked on discrete projects. Id.
3. Constructive Discharge
On or about October 9, 2008, Steels submitted a letter of resignation to the Y. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 47, ¶ 67. According to Steels, she resigned because the Y had left her with no choice but to do so. Id. Steels contends that she was constructively discharged based on Hite’s treatment of her, the alleged discriminatory performance evaluations and merit increases she received, VanDeventer’s May 2008 promotion, and Hite’s lack of desire to correct the inequity in her overall base salary. Id. Moreover, Steels alleges that the Y was not dedicated to solving her issues or creating an environment in which she could be successful, particularly after she saw a presentation ■ given to the Y’s board that concluded that minorities were being disadvantaged in the Y. Id. Ultimately, Steels concluded that she had to leave the Y if she wanted to advance her career. See Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 29, ¶ 52.
Sometime in September 2008, Steels met with Karen Mitrenga, who was the Senior Director of HR at Wrightwood Capital. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 48, ¶ 70. On or about September 26, 2008, Mitrenga offered Steels a job at Wrightwood. Id. Mitrenga then sent Steels a job offer on October 1, 2008, which Steels accepted. Id. Her starting salary at Wrightwood was $82,500. Id. at 49, ¶ 71. Steels requested a start date of October 27, 2008. Id. at 49, ¶ 70. Steels told Mitrenga that she did not want to start working at Wrightwood for another month so that she could make sure she was leaving the Y team “in good shape.” Id. at 49, ¶.71. Steels did not feel, however, that her move to Wrightwood Capital was a “step up” from her position at the Y, because her new job entailed less responsibility. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 30, ¶ 54.
*1077 4. Protected Activities and Retaliation
Steels alleges that she was retaliated against for engaging in protected activities. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 41, ¶ 56. In particular, Steels claims that she engaged in protected activity when she wrote a letter on September 21, 2007, to Nicoll (the Y’s CEO), in which she complained about Hite’s treatment of her. Id. Although the letter did not contain or mention the words “race,” “color,” or “discrimination,” Steels contends that she was complaining about discrimination, id., and included words that she thought addressed that issue. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 15, ¶ 25. Specifically, the letter complained about “inequities in treatment” concerning performance management training sessions, performance review assessments, staff projects, and telecommuting options. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 41, ¶ 57. The letter also noted that Hite had made “offensive comments, [performed] acts of intimidation ... and [demonstrated] a harassing nature towards some work assignments.” Id. Steels also requested that “measures be taken to prevent any acts of retaliation against her.” Id. The letter did not, however, mention any complaints about pay or promotions. Id.
On October 3, 2007, Steels met with Nicoll to discuss the letter. Id. at 42, ¶ 58. According to Steels, Nicoll spent very little time discussing her complaints during their meeting. Id. Instead, Nicoll focused on his overall concerns with HR, informed Steels that the Y needed to reevaluate the HR team, and discussed potential staff reductions. Id. Steels also claims that she told Nicoll she thought her letter was based on or related to race discrimination. Id.
At some point after her meeting with Nicoll, Steels also met with Amy Bateson, the Y’s Assistant General Counsel, to discuss her letter. Id. at 42, ¶ 59; see also Steels’ Dep., Pl. Appx., Dkt. 362, Tab 5 at 590:15-19. Bateson told Steels that the Y was planning an investigation of her complaint. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 42, ¶ 59. The Y then hired a law firm, Ogletree, Deakins, Bash, Smoak & Stewart, to conduct an investigation. Id. at 43, ¶ 60. The Y also hired John Behr, an outside consultant, to serve as a coach and liaison between Steels and Hite to help solve their communication issues. Id. at 44, ¶ 62. Despite these measures, however, on December 21, 2007, Steels filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. Id. at 44, ¶ 63. 15 According to Steels, after she filed her EEOC charge, Behr became aggressive and argumentative with her. Id. at 45, ¶ 64.
Furthermore, after Hite learned about Steels’ EEOC complaint, she made handwritten notes about Steels. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 15, ¶ 27. Specifically, Hite noted her “attendance,” “attitude,” that she met with people behind closed doors, and that she “runs” to Jones with her issues. Id. Hite also wrote that it was “intrig[uing] [that] [Steels had] felt this way since 8/05,” and described Steels as “insubordinate, subversive, and distrustful.” Id. Steels claims that the Y retaliated against her for sending the September 2007 letter and filing an EEOC charge of discrimination by, among other things, failing to promote her, giving her an inadequate retroactive salary increase in October 2008, failing to adequately complete her performance reviews and assigning her discriminatorily low ratings and merit increases, and by constructively discharg *1078 ing her. See, e.g., PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 45-46. Steels also contends that Hite’s failure to assign her completed performance evaluations led to Steels being passed over for the interim director position. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 381 at 26, ¶47.
C. Iona Toles
Plaintiff Iona Toles is an African American woman and, as far as can be discerned from the record, is currently employed by the Y as a Contact Center Representative. Toles alleges that the Y discriminated against her on the basis of her race. Specifically, she claims that the Y paid her less than Caucasian administrative employees, failed to place her in Pay Grade B despite her many years of experience and service at the Y, and failed to promote her on three different occasions because she is African American. See Pl. Resp., Dkt. 318 at 1, 6-7.
1. Compensation Claims
Toles began working at the Y’s Chicago office on a temporary basis around 1989 or 1990. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 21, ¶ 33. In 1991, she was hired as a full-time secretary at a starting salary of $18,000. Id. at 21-22, ¶ 33. Then in 1997, Toles applied for and received a promotion to Administrative Secretary and Receptionist for the Department of Association Advancement. See id. at 22, ¶ 34. As a result of the promotion, Toles’ salary- increased to $22,500. Id.
Throughout her time at the Y, Toles avers, she made contributions to the organization for which she never received recognition. For instance, while Toles was acting as the backup receptionist in the early 1990’s, she arranged to have a computer placed at the inception desk so that she could perform secretarial work when time allowed. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 12, ¶ 29. In 1997, after Toles had assumed the position of full-time front desk receptionist, she put together a handbook that explained the procedures for handling routine inquires and directing calls, so that any temporary worker could cover the front desk in her absence. Id. With the help of an unidentified coworker, Toles later drafted a proposal for a call center. Id.
In 2001, the Y created a “Contact Center” to handle the Y’s calls. Id. at 12, ¶ 29; Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 22, ¶ 35. Toles contends that her proposal was the basis, at least in part, for the creation of the Contact Center. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 12, ¶ 29. Toles then applied for and received a promotion to the position of Contact Center Analyst in the Internal Support Services Group. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 22, ¶ 35. With that promotion, Toles’ salary increased to $30,000. Id. Toles was also required to reapply for her position as the front desk receptionist, Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 2, ¶ 4, and was selected to continue in that position. Id.
The following presents an incomplete record of the performance ratings and merit increases that Toles received from Rick Snell, a Caucasian male, who took over as the manager of the Contact Center around May of 2003, Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311, at 24, ¶ 38, as recounted in the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts and responses. 16 Beginning in fiscal year 2003, Snell gave Toles an overall performance rating of “meets expectations.” Id. Further, Snell gave Toles an overall rating of *1079 66.3 in fiscal year 2004. 17 Id. at 24, ¶ 39. Neither party has provided information on the merit increase and amount of compensation that Toles received for these years.
In September 2005, Toles received a 2.3% merit pay increase, which corresponds to a “meets expectations” performance rating for that year, bringing her annual salary to $35,208. Id. at 25, ¶ 40. Toles complained to Snell that the merit increase she received was inadequate. Id. at 26, ¶ 41. In 2006, Snell gave Toles a rating of 80.35 (out of 100) on her performance review. Id. at 27, ¶ 42. Toles also received a 2.9% merit pay increase that year, which brought her salary to $36,240. Id. Toles again complained about this increase and asked whether Snell could use the department’s budget to provide additional increases to Toles and other employees in the Contact Center. Id. at 27, ¶ 43. Then in 2007, Toles received a performance rating of “2.3,” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. •378 at 22, ¶ 53, and a 2.7% merit increase, which brought her salary to $37,224. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 28, ¶ 44. Toles also complained about the adequacy of this increase. .Id.
For fiscal year 2008, Snell gave Toles a performance rating of “meets all requirements” 18 (or a rating of “2”). Id. at 33, ¶ 52. According to the plaintiff, Toles also received a 2.25% merit increase this year. See id. at 33-34. However, according to the plaintiffs statement of additional facts, Toles was earning the same salary in 2008 as she had in 2007-$37,224. See Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 10, ¶ 25. Given this discrepancy, it is unclear whether Toles actually received a merit pay increase for 2008 or if the record recites an incorrect salary for 2007.
In 2009, Snell gave Toles an overall rating of “meets expectations.” Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 34, ¶ 53. Toles also a received a 3.4% merit increase in March of that year, bringing her salary to $38,480. Id. at 35, ¶ 54. This increase compensated Toles for her performance over the course of a year and a half and corresponded to a yearly increase of 2.2%. Id.; see also Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 20, ¶ 49. For fiscal year 2010, Snell gave Toles an overall performance rating of “meets expectations,” which included ratings of “below expectations” in three categories of the review. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 38, ¶ 61. Toles spoke with Angela Williams, who had recently taken over responsibility for the Contact Center, id. at 38, ¶ 60, about the review and to dispute the “below expectations” ratings. Id. Thereafter, Williams set up a meeting between Toles and Snell to discuss the scores that Toles had received. Id. at 38, ¶ 62.
In the meeting, Toles asked that her performance review reflect the fact that she was out of the office on medical leave for knee surgery and therapy for four months of the review period, and that her duties had been modified, subject to doctor’s orders. Id. Due to restrictions prescribed by her doctor, Toles had to walk away from her desk for 15 minutes of each hour, which decreased her availability to answer phone calls. Id. at 38-39, ¶ 62. Following the meeting, Snell recalculated Toles’ metrics based on the medical leave and accommodations she had received. Id. *1080 Specifically, Snell changed the “below expectations” ratings to “meets expectations,” and kept the overall rating of “meets expectations” the same. Id. at 39, ¶ 63. Toles, however, believes that Williams directed Snell to change the ratings just to keep her happy. Id. As a result, Toles’ final performance rating for fiscal year 2010 was “meets expectations” and she received a 2.25% merit pay increase, which brought her salary to $39,346.21. Id. at 40, ¶ 64.
2. Failure-to-Promote Claims
Toles also alleges that she was denied promotions and that in one particular instance the Y concocted a plan to remove her from her position at the main reception desk and deny her a promotion because, as an African American, she did not fit the “right image” for the Y. Specifically,' in March 2008, the Y posted a job opening for a Receptionist/Data Processing Clerk, stationed at the front desk on the fourteenth floor of the Y’s offices as part of a “restructuring” of the front desk position to focus more heavily on data entry. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 30, ¶ 47; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt 378 at 3, ¶ 5. The fourteenth floor is where visitors to the Y are greeted, and where Toles had been stationed as a full-time receptionist at the time that position was “restructured.” According to the Y, this new position required very strong typing, data entry, and software skills, and was classified in Pay Grade B — a step up from Toles’ Pay Grade A. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 30, ¶47.
Toles applied for the position and took a typing test. Id. Toles also interviewed with Snell and Jensen. Id. Johanna Pis-tell, who up to that point had been a temporary worker under Jensen, also applied and took the same typing test. Id. at 31, ¶ 48. Pistell outperformed Toles on the test and ultimately received the position in May 2008. Id.; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 4, ¶ 8. However, the parties dispute whether the new position truly required data entry skills and additional responsibilities, with less of a focus on call center duties. Toles contends that the two positions were essentially the same. See, e.g., PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 31, ¶ 48.
Snell told Toles that she did not receive the promotion because she lacked the necessary “technical skills,” and because Pis-tell performed better on the typing test. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 8, ¶ 19. However, Toles remained a Contact Center employee, but acted as Pistell’s backup-a claim that the Y disputes. Id. at 4, ¶ 9; PI. Resp., Dkt. 311 at 31-32, ¶ 48.
As a result of the “restructuring” and Toles’ failure to obtain the promotion, her desk was relocated from the main reception area on the fourteenth floor to the less busy fifteenth floor. According to Toles, Kent Johnson, the Y’s Chief Operating Officer, stated that Toles did not fit the “right image” for the Y. 19 Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 4, ¶ 8; PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 28-29, ¶ 45. As explained above, Toles believes that this is the actual reason a “new position” was created-as an excuse to remove her from the main reception area and keep her in Pay Grade A. Toles testified that she was removed from the front desk and that Jensen and Johnson were responsible. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 28-29, ¶ 45.
On another occasion in 2010, the Y posted a position for a Contact Center Team lead. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 35, ¶ 55. According to Toles, four internal candidates, all African American women, ap *1081 plied for the position: Toles, Sylvia Pur-nell, Nancy Upke, and Nicole Bradley. Id. at 36, ¶ 55. However, none of the African American employees received the promotion. Id. Toles contends, and the Y disputes, that after a Caucasian man declined the position the Y decided not to fill it and withdrew the opening. Id.
That same year, the Y also posted two positions for Conference Center Coordinators. PI. Resp., Dkt. 311 at 36, ¶ 56. According to Toles, these positions were stationed at the reception desk on the Y’s newly renovated floor of conference rooms. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 5,-¶ 11. The job posting stated that the position required experience in conference and event planning, in addition to computer proficiency and “highly refined customer service and interpersonal communication skills.” Id. Further, the job description required applicants to have the “ability to perform cost analysis and projections, proficiency in Microsoft Office, excellent computer skills, and experience in webinar and equipment expectations.” PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 311 at 36, ¶ 56. Toles contends that she had the required computer skills and could have learned the necessary software programs, had she been given the opportunity. Id.
However, Jim Mellor, the Director of Finance, promoted Nicole Bradley, an African American woman, out of the Contact Center, and hired Richard Marsoun, a Caucasian man, to fill those positions. Id. at 36, ¶ 56. According to the Y, Marsoun had prior Conference Center Coordinator experience at a local YMCA. Id. Bradley and Marsoun were given a starting salary of $41,300 and placed in Pay Grade C. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 378 at 12, ¶28. Toles, however, remained in Pay Grade A, as she had throughout her time at the Y. Id. Toles also contends that she was asked to serve as a backup conference center coordinator, but the Y disputes this claim. Id. at 6, ¶ 14.
D. Kavon Ward
In September of 2008, Plaintiff Kavon Ward, an African American woman, was hired as the Y’s “Public Policy Manager” at the Y’s Government Relations Office in Washington, D.C. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 10-12, ¶¶ 16, 20. According to the defendants, Ward was hired based on her experience with, and passion for, the Y’s programs-almost all of which she participated in at the Harlem YMCA in her youth. See id. at 12, ¶ 19. Nevertheless, shortly after she was hired, Ward’s professional relationship with the D.C. Y began to deteriorate. Indeed, according to the record before the Court, Ward’s time at the Y’s D.C. office was tense and marked by confrontations with her co-workers and supervisors, culminating in her termination. Ward alleges that her termination was racially discriminatory and retaliatory. She further contends that she received discriminatory compensation and performance reviews.
According to Ward, the atmosphere in the Y’s D.C. office generally, and in the public policy department particularly, was loud and aggressive. The public policy team was led by Audrey Haynes, a Caucasian woman and the Y’s Senior Vice President and Chief Government Affairs Officer, who reported directly to CEO Nicoll. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 3, ¶ 3. Haynes was also a member of the Y’s “Leadership Team,” a group of senior executives to whom all employees at the Y reported. Id. Richard Bland, a Caucasian man and the Y’s Director of Federal Government Relations, and Katie Adam-son, a Caucasian woman and the Y’s Di- . rector of Health Partnerships and Policy, were also lobbyists in the D.C. office who reported to Haynes. Id. at 3, ¶ 4; Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 11, 13, ¶¶ 18, 21.
*1082 Employees in the D.C. office described Haynes as a “demanding” boss with “high expectations.” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 3, ¶ 5. Bland also testified that Haynes used a raised voice at times, has been “harsh to almost everybody in the office,” and once slammed a door in his face. Id. Another employee described Haynes as having a “very loud commanding presence” and that the public policy side of the D.C. office was generally loud. Id. Further, a former employee, Torrence Montgomery, recounted that Haynes had slammed books, doors, and pens in her interactions with other employees, and that nearly everyone in the office had had an encounter with Haynes in which she yelled or vented. Id. at 4, ¶ 6.
In September 2008, Ward applied for the position of Public Policy Manager. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 10, ¶ 16. The Public Policy Manager represented the Y on children, youth, and family issues and also lobbied on behalf of the “Y movement” by promoting its legislative priorities and agenda on Capitol Hill. Id. at 11, ¶ 17. The job description the Y posted for the Public Policy Manager position states a salary range of $70,000 to $85,000 and a requirement of “5-7 years [of] work experience on Capitol Hill.” Id. (citing Defs. Appendix, Dkt. 262, Tab 27 at 1). Ward did not have the required work experience, but disputes that the experience was truly required by the Y as a condition of employment. See id. at 11. That said, when she applied, Ward did have some experience, having served as a fellow at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation in 2007. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 2, ¶ 2; see also Ward’s Dep., PLApp., Dkt. 362, Tab 7 at 239:11-4.
After applying, Ward interviewed with Haynes and Bland. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 11-12, ¶ 18. During that interview, Bland noted that while Ward did not have the requisite 5 to 7 years of work experience, he liked the fact that she had experience with the Harlem YMCA. Id. at 12, ¶ 19. Bland further noted that Ward spoke with passion about her experience at the Harlem YMCA and its programs and believed that passion would make her an excellent advocate for the Y. Id. The defendants contend that they hired Ward on that basis, despite her lack of experience. Id. Ward, however, contends that she was chosen because she was the best applicant from a pool of 50 candidates. Id. at 12.
Ward was hired on September 16, 2008, at a starting salary of $70,000-the lowest end of the salary range for the position. Id. at 12, ¶ 20. The defendants contend that Ward stated that her desired salary was $70,000 on her application. Id. at 10, ¶ 16. Ward, however, contends that she requested a starting salary of $80,000, but was told that the Y would only pay her $70,000. Id. at 10. Ward avers that the only reason she stated $70,000 as her desired salary was because she did not fill out the application until after she was informed she would be hired and that the Y would only pay her $70,000 as a starting salary. Id. at 10-11. It should also be noted that, pursuant to her offer letter, Ward was not eligible for a merit pay raise until 2010. Id. at 12, 20.
Once hired, Ward was the only African American employee on the public policy team, which included Haynes, Bland, and Adamson. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 2, ¶ 2. She reported directly to Bland, who in turn reported to Haynes. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt 310 at 12-13, ¶ 20. Ward also contends that at times she took direction directly from Haynes. Id. at 13.
For the period between January and June 2009, Ward received positive feedback from Bland, and was scored as “exceeding expectations” in six of nine subject *1083 matters covered by her review. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 8, ¶ 15. In the manager comment section of the review, Bland even noted that Ward “should be commended for working on developing the full range of skills required in her position in her first 10 months on the job.” Id. However, based on the record, it does not appear that this review truly reflected the relationship between Ward and the other lobbyists in the D.C. office during this period of time.
Specifically, in January of 2009, and what would be the first of a series of clashes between Ward on one hand, and Bland and Haynes on the other, Bland attempted to coach Ward concerning her tone around the office. Id. at 4, ¶ 8; Pl. 56.1Resp., Dkt. 310 at 13, ¶ 22.. During this conversation, Bland commented that Ward should watch her tone, particularly around Haynes, because as an educated African American woman, she could be perceived as strident and aggressive (hereafter the “January 2009 Comment”). Pl. 56.1Resp., Dkt. 310 at 13-14, ¶¶ 22-23; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 4, ¶ 8. Ward took the comment as Bland’s “understanding of what ... [Haynes] thought of [her].” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 4, ¶ 8. Ward also contends that Caucasian lobbyists spoke aggressively to each other and that it was unfair to single her out for criticism based on her race. Id. According to the plaintiff, Bland then apologized for making the comment and asked Ward not to report him or tell anyone what he had said. Id. at 5, ¶ 8.
Despite Bland’s purported request not to repeat what he had said, Ward reported the January 2009 Comment to HR Director Jackie Gordon (Hite had left the Y in October 2008), who worked in the Chicago office, stating that she thought the comment may have originated with Haynes or that Bland was repeating a sentiment that Haynes had expressed. Id. at 5, ¶ 9; Pl. 56.1Resp., Dkt. 310 at 15, ¶ 24. In particular, Ward believed the comment may have originated with Haynes because, as Ward testified, Haynes cut her off during meetings, gave her directives that contradicted Bland’s, and on occasion assumed that Ward was not doing her job or that she was “crazy.” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 6, ¶ 10; Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 16, ¶ 25.
Pursuant to Gordon’s advice, Ward emailed Haynes on June 22, 2009, to schedule a meeting to discuss communication issues, as well as Haynes’ professional expectations. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 6, ¶ 11. If the meeting went well, Ward also planned to discuss the January 2009 Comment. Id. On June 23, 2009, Haynes told Ward, via email, that if she wanted to meet outside the office, they could do so on July 1, 2009. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 17-18, ¶ 29.
At the meeting on July 1, Ward expressed her concerns to Haynes. Id. at 18. According to Ward, however, Haynes denied having any communication issues and stated that any problem must lie with Ward herself. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 6, ¶ 11. After the meeting, Ward reported the outcome of the meeting to Gordon, which Ward felt was disappointing. Id. at 6, ¶ 11; Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 19, ¶ 31. Gordon offered to speak with Haynes, Bland, or both of them, but Ward told Gordon she was not sure if she wanted Gordon to intervene at that time. Pl. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 19, ¶ 31. Gordon then informed Amy Bateson, the Y’s Associate General Counsel, Angela Williams, the Y’s General Counsel, and CEO Nicoll about Ward’s concerns about the January 2009 Comment and the way in which Haynes conducted public policy meetings. Id.
The professional relationship between Ward and Haynes hit another bump on *1084 July 10, 2009. On that day, Haynes sent Ward an email asking her to skip a congressional hearing in order to take part in a conference call with the White House. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 6, ¶ 12; PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 20, ¶ 33. In that email, Haynes also added that “going to hearings every day for the sake of going is not necessarily the best use of time but this is between you and [Bland].” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 6, ¶ 12; PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 20, ¶ 33. Ward replied, writing that she was “not sure where that comment [came] from perhaps one of you [Bland or Haynes] can enlighten [her].” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 6, ¶ 12. After reading the email, Bland went into Ward’s office to tell her that her response was inappropriate and disrespectful. Id. Hearing raised voices, Haynes joined them in Ward’s office. Id.
Haynes and Bland admonished Ward that her tone and communication style were disrespectful. Id. at 7, ¶ 13. Ward responded that she thought it was unfair that Caucasian employees could “slam doors at one another, hang up phones on one another, scream back and forth at one another, and then because [Ward] speak[s] with passion and conviction [she is] told that [she] should watch [her] tone because unfortunately as an educated black woman [she] can come across as aggressive.” Id. Ward also told Haynes about Bland’s January 2009 Comment. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 21-22, ¶ 35. Haynes responded that Ward should not make the issue “about race.” Id.
At some point during this confrontation, Ward looked away from Haynes and Bland and focused on her computer screen. Id. at 7, ¶ 14. Haynes responded by moving the computer screen, reaching across Ward’s desk, and then grabbing Ward’s face and turning it back so that Ward was looking directly at her. Id. Ward later reported this incident (“July 10 Meeting”) to Gordon. Id.
A few months later, in October 2009, Gordon told Haynes that Ward had reported the January 2009 Comment. Id. at 8, ¶ 16; PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 19, ¶ 32. Upon returning to the D.C. office, Haynes began documenting criticisms of Ward in a log, writing that “I [Haynes] began keeping this log in mid-October [2009] after hearing that [Ward] had made several calls to our HR department, consulted other Y colleagues and word had gotten back to our CEO that she was unhappy with her treatment for lack of a better characterization.” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 8-9, ¶ 17.
More problems arose in January 2010 when Bland gave Ward her second performance review covering the period from July to December 2009. Id. at 9, ¶ 19. Defendants contend that this was Ward’s year-end review for fiscal year 2009, but the plaintiff avers that this was not a “year-end” review, but only covered .the specified time period. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 25, ¶ 39. Ward completed her self-assessment for that review using the scores she had received from Bland for the previous period, January to July 2009. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 9, ¶ 19. However, Bland told Ward that he needed to lower her scores from the previous review because CEO Nicoll was requiring supervisors to give out fewer 3’s (“exceeds expectations”) and 4’s (“far exceeds expectations”). Id. Ward did not believe that her performance warranted lower scores, or that CEO Nicoll had directed supervisors to give fewer “exceeds” and “far exceeds” ratings. Id. Afraid that Haynes and Bland were trying to “push her out” of the Y, however, Ward decided to sign the less-favorable performance review. Id.
Thereafter, Bland submitted the review to Haynes for her approval. Pl. 56.1 *1085 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 26, ¶ 41. Haynes, however, did not approve the review and attempted to lower Ward’s scores even further so that she would not receive higher than a 2 (“meets expectations”) in all categories. Id. at 27, ¶ 41; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 10, ¶ 20. According to the defendants, Haynes told Bland that the lowered scores that Ward had signed off on did not accurately reflect her performance. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 26, ¶ 41.
Around February 1, 2010, Bland presented the modified review with even lower performance scores to Ward for her signature, again explaining that CEO Ni-coll wanted more rigorous assessments of performance before employees received a rating higher than 2, or a “meets expectations” rating. Id. at 27, ¶ 42. Ward, however, refused to sign the modified review. Id. Ward then complained to Gordon, explaining that Bland had lowered her scores from her previous review, and that Haynes had lowered her scores even further. Id. at 28; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 10, ¶ 20. Ward contends that the lowered scores were discriminatory and given in retaliation for her prior complaints of racial discrimination. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at ¶¶ 27, 41.
Because Bland did not receive Haynes’ approval for the review Ward signed off on in January 2010, Gordon instructed Bland and Haynes to return the scores to what they had been prior to Haynes lowering them. Id. at 28, ¶ 43. Around February 3, 2010, Bland then presented Ward with a revised review which contained the scores that Ward originally signed off on. Id. at 28, ¶ 44. However, that review contained comments that the original review did not, which, according to Ward, indicated that she was not performing her job adequately. Id. at 28-29. The defendants contend that the comments were left in by mistake, were subsequently deleted, and that the final review was identical to the original version that Ward signed in January. Id. at 28-29, ¶ 44. Ward contends that the critical comments were not left in as a mistake, but with the expectations that Ward would sign the review without actually reading them. Id. at 29.
On February 3, 2010, Bland also began keeping a log titled “Memorandum to File Re: Kavon Ward Substandard Performance.” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 11, ¶ 23. Around this time, Gordon flew to D.C. to meet with Haynes, Bland, and Ward to discuss the 2009 performance review and other issues. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 30, ¶ 45. Gordon spent the day in D.C. and met with each employee individually and as a group. Id. Gordon offered to hire a career coach for Ward and assigned her a mentor. Id. Ward complained that Gordon had not offered to hire a career coach for either Haynes or Bland. Id. at 30, ¶ 45; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 11, ¶22. In response to Ward’s complaint, Gordon recommended coaching for Haynes and Bland as well. Defs. 56. 1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 11, ¶ 22.
On April 8, 2010, Bland emailed Haynes a copy of the notes he had been keeping on Ward. Id. at 12, ¶ 24. Haynes red-lined the notes and responded that “[t]his is about the fourth I have of these, either on Performance or Attendance.” Id. Haynes then suggested that Bland consult with Monica Vinluan, who was experiencing “challenges” with Sam Beeknell, another African American employee. Id. According to Haynes, Vinluan had purportedly had success dealing with Beeknell by placing him on a 90-day improvement plan. Id. Vinluan later fired Beeknell. Id.
Tensions between Ward and Haynes hit another high (or, low) point on April 12, 2010. The trouble began when Ward responded to an email sent to the public *1086 policy team. In her response, Ward indicated that she had been forwarding the team’s “Monday morning memos” to the Youth and Family Team, which was headed by Barbara Roth. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 32, ¶ 47. Haynes replied to Ward, indicating that Ward should have received permission from the public policy team before forwarding the public policy team’s memos. Id. Ward was upset with Haynes’ response, and avers that Haynes would not have “called out” Caucasian employees, such as Bland and Adamson, in the same manner. Id. at 33.
That same day, tensions boiled over when Haynes, Bland, Ward, and other team members held their weekly staff meeting (“April 12 staff meeting”). Id. at 33, ¶ 48. During the meeting, the defendants contend, and Ward disputes, that Ward turned her chair toward Haynes and stared at her for the duration of the meeting. Id. Haynes allegedly slammed a book on a table and told Ward that she did not appreciate the way in which Ward was looking at her. Id. According to Ward, Haynes yelled and berated her. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 12, ¶ 25.
Ward called into work sick the next day, April 13, 2010. Id. at 13, ¶26; PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 33, ¶ 49. Ward also reported Haynes’ “outburst” to Gordon. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 13, ¶26. Specifically, Ward lodged a written complaint alleging that Haynes was “harassing” her. Id. Gordon testified that she considered Haynes’ conduct during the April 12 staff meeting “inappropriate” and “serious,” id. at 13, ¶ 27, and responded by scheduling a coaching session so that a third party could talk to Haynes and Bland to “stop the madness.” Id. at 13, ¶ 27.
Ward returned to work the next day, on April 14, 2010. Id. at 14, ¶ 28. According to Ward, Bland was upset that she had missed work the previous day and demanded to see a doctor’s note. Id. Ward explained that she needed to take a day due to the incident that occurred at the April 12 staff meeting. Id. Ward contends that Bland then told her that she should be “careful” because when she gets upset or looks at Haynes and Bland a certain way, “there could be consequences such as what occurred on [April 12].” Id. Ward then emailed Gordon again, complaining that Bland had. threatened her to “be careful” and that Haynes and Bland were retaliating against her, and seeking permission to present her complaint directly to CEO Nicolh Id. at 14, ¶ 29; PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 34, ¶ 50. Gordon then called Haynes to discuás the incident. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 34-35, ¶ 50.
Gordon forwarded Ward’s complaint to the Y’s legal department. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 14, ¶ 30. Gordon told Associate General Counsel Karyn Boston about her meetings and interactions with Ward, Haynes, and Bland up to that point. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 35, ¶ 51. After she learned about the April 12 staff meeting incident, Boston started an investigation. Id. at 35, ¶ 51. Angela Williams, the Y’s General Counsel, called Haynes to advise her that Ward had filed a complaint against her, and that the legal department would be investigating. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 14, ¶ 30. Williams and Haynes were friends and both were senior vice presidents who served on the Y’s Leadership Team. Id.
On April 19, 2010, Boston traveled from Chicago to the Y’s D.C. office to conduct her investigation. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 35, ¶ 52. Boston interviewed Ward, Adamson, Bland, and Haynes, among other Y employees. Id. at 35, ¶ 52; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 15, ¶ 31. Bland told Boston that he had worked with Ward to help guide her, but that Ward’s tone had been inappropriate from the start and that *1087 she had been openly hostile during meetings. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 36, ¶ 53. Bland also stated that he was fearful of Ward’s anger toward Haynes and that he did not feel safe with Ward in the office. Id.
Adamson told Boston that Ward had yelled at her once, but for reasons that were justified, and that Ward “sighs, disengages, or crosses her arms when she is mad.” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 15, ¶ 33. Adamson also told Boston that, on an earlier occasion, Ward had told Adam-son that she had beat up one of her high school teachers in the past, and that, Ward wanted to beat up Haynes in the same manner. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 37, ¶ 55. Like Bland, Adamson also stated that she wanted Ward removed from the office. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 15, ¶ 33.
Haynes told Boston that she felt Ward’s behavior during the April 12 staff meeting was disrespectful and abusive. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 37, ¶ 54. However, Boston did not ask Haynes about whether she had slammed a book during the staff meeting. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 15, ¶ 32. Montgomery confirmed that Haynes had slammed the book, id., but Bland denied that it happened. Id.
Ward later traveled to Chicago to meet with Boston and Gordon about the investigation. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 38, ¶ 57. Some details of the meeting are disputed, but in general Ward contends that both Boston and Gordon told her that Haynes had been found “guilty of unethical behavior.” Id. Further, despite Gordon previously suggesting that Ward could work from home, Ward was informed that this was no longer an option. Id. Instead, arrangements were made for Ward to work four days per week at the local metropolitan D.C. YMCA, and one day per week in the Government Relations and Policy office, where Haynes, Bland, and Adamson worked. Id.
Ward contends that she abided by these arrangements, even though she felt the outcome of the investigation was unfair. Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 16, ¶ 36. In particular, Ward was upset that Haynes was never disciplined, or, as Haynes claims, even told the outcome of the investigation. Id.
Starting in May 2010, Ward worked from the metropolitan YMCA until the end of her time with the Y. During this period, a final incident occurred which ultimately led to Ward’s termination from the organization. While the specifics of the incident are disputed, the parties agree that on June 10, 2010, Adamson attended a Healthy Communities Initiative meeting and provided an update on the Promise Neighborhoods Initiative-a program for which Ward was responsible — without Ward in attendance. Id. at 17, ¶ 37; PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 41, ¶ 61. After learning that Adamson had “reported out” on an area within her area of responsibility, Ward emailed Adamson to find out if Haynes had asked Adamson to “lead up” the issue. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 42, ¶ 63. The next day, June 11, 2010, Adam-son responded to Ward’s email and copied Bland, Haynes, and Monica Vinluan, who worked on the Healthy Community Projects. Id. at 42, ¶ 63; Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 17, ¶ 38. In the email, Adam-son wrote that Ward should be clearer about “when and how to reach [her at the metropolitan YMCA] and what kind of thing is important enough to take [her] away from the work [she was] doing at the [metropolitan YMCA].” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 17, ¶ 38.
According to Ward, she called Adamson after receiving the email, but Adamson yelled at her and accused her of being aggressive. Id. at 17-18, ¶ 38. Ward then *1088 sent Adamson a formal email response stating “we both know why you felt the need” to respond in the way you did. Id. at 18, ¶ 39. Within minutes, Adamson replied, “[a]nd I am sorry you felt the need to call me and scream at me, saying ‘Fuck You’ to me and the whole team and frankly be so angry that I needed to hang up.” Id. Ward responded, “[a]nd Katie [Adam-son] I’m sorry you feel the need to tell stories, God, you and I all know that didn’t come out of my mouth but I’m not surprised you would try to vilify my character and portray me in such a negative light.” Id. at 18, ¶ 40. As noted above, Bland and Haynes were copied on each of these emails and responses. Id. Ward denies telling Adamson “fuck you and fuck the whole team” when they spoke on the phone. PI. Resp., Dkt. 310 at 43, ¶ 64.
Shortly thereafter, Adamson called Haynes to report that Ward had allegedly said “fuck you and fuck the whole team” on their phone conversation. Id. at 43, ¶ 65. Haynes advised Adamson to contact Gordon in HR and Williams in the General Counsel’s office. Id. Adamson called Williams, reported her allegations, and reiterated her fear of Ward. Defs. Resp., Dkt. 372 at 18, ¶ 41. Bland also participated on that call. Id.
Williams had already been receiving updates from Gordon regarding Ward’s discrimination and retaliation complaints. Id. at 18-19, ¶ 41. Williams instructed Adam-son to forward her the email chain she had with Ward, and that Adamson “need[ed] to put in there that [she' felt] scared.” Id. Bland further testified that Adamson felt her “life was threatened.” Id. The defendants also contend that Adamson spoke with Gordon about her fear of Ward. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 45, ¶ 67. Adamson told Gordon about her earlier conversation with Ward, in which Ward allegedly stated that she beat up one of her teachers and that she wanted to beat up Haynes in the same manner. Id.
On June 17, 2010, Gordon and Williams met with Ward to terminate her employment. Id. at 46, ¶ 69. Williams testified that Ward was terminated because the Y “has zero tolerance for workplace violence,” citing Ward’s “language” to Adamson and Haynes, as well as Bland’s “concerns” about Ward’s “language and conduct.” Defs. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 372 at 20, ¶45. The parties dispute whether Haynes and Bland were involved in the decision to terminate Ward. The defendants contend that only Williams and Gordon were involved in the decision to terminate Ward, with Williams as the ultimate decisionmaker. Id. at 20-21. Ward claims that Williams, Gordon, Bland, and Haynes were all involved in the termination decision. Id. at 20, ¶ 45.
After Ward was terminated, Montgomery testified that Haynes came out of her office and performed “a cheerleading thing that she does” and “talked about how much the office felt so much lighter.” Id. at 21, ¶ 46. On January 4, 2011, Haynes hired Ivana Alexander, an African American woman, as a Senior Public Policy Manager with a salary of $98,000 to replace Ward. PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 310 at 48, ¶ 71. Prior to being hired by the Y, Alexander worked as a Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director for a U.S. Representative for two years and as a legislative assistant in the Office of the Majority Leader for approximately three years. Id.
II. ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Porter v. City of Chi, 700 F.3d 944, 950 (7th Cir.2012) (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “To survive summary *1089 judgment, the nonmovant must produce sufficient admissible evidence, taken in the light most favorable to it, to return a jury verdict in its favor.” Fleishman v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 698 F.3d 598, 603 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Berry v. Chi Transit Auth., 618 F.3d 688, 696 (7th Cir.2010)). Disputed issues of material fact must be resolved in the nonmovant’s favor. See Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir.2012) (citation omitted). However, the Court “will not draw inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture,” Collins v. Am. Red Cross, 715 F.3d 994, 997 (7th Cir.2013) (citing Harper v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297, 306 (7th Cir. 2012)), and Rule 56 “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.” Scott v. Trump Ind., Inc., 337 F.3d 939, 945 (7th Cir.2003) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).
A. Legal Standards
The plaintiffs have brought their claims of racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, the IHRA, and the DCHRA. The parties agree that the same legal standards apply under each of these statutes. See, e.g. Humphries v. CBOCS W, Inc., 474 F.3d 387, 403-04 (7th Cir.2007) (same prima facie requirements applied to discrimination and retaliation claims brought under Title VII and § 1981); Paul v. Theda Med. Ctr., Inc., 465 F.3d 790, 794 (7th Cir.2006) (“The framework governing liability under Title VII also applies to [§ ] 1981 claims.” (citing Gonzalez v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co., 133 F.3d 1025, 1035 (7th Cir.1998))); Young v. Covington & Burling LLP, 846 F.Supp.2d 141, 153 (D.D.C.2012) (“In addressing employment discrimination claims under [the DCHRA and § 1981], courts look to the jurisprudence surrounding Title VII.” (citations omitted)); Wallace v. Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mel-lott, LLC, 57 A.3d 943, 956 (D.C.2012) (“In considering discrimination claims under the [DCHRA], this court uses the three-part, burden-shifting test ... for Title VII cases”); Budzileni v. Dep’t of Human Rights, 392 Ill.App.3d 422, 443-44 , 331 Ill. Dec. 434 , 910 N.E.2d 1190 (1st Dist.2009) (Illinois courts “have adopted the three-part test employed by the federal courts in actions for employment discrimination brought under Title VII.” (citing Zaderaka v. III. Human Rights Comm’n, 131 I11.2d 172, 178-79, 137 Ill.Dee. 31, 545 N.E.2d 684 (1989))); Bd. ofTrs. ofS. III. Univ. v. Knight, 163 Ill.App.3d 289, 294 , 114 Ill. Dec. 836 , 516 N.E.2d 991 (5th Dist.1987) (“In analyzing claims of discrimination under the [IHRA], Illinois courts have looked to the standards applicable to federal claims brought under Title VIL”). Accordingly, the Court analyzes plaintiffs’ allegations under the legal standards applicable to Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims.
The operative complaint in this case is the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint (hereinafter, simply “Complaint”). The Complaint sets forth in twelve “counts” a multitude of distinct legal “claims” brought by different combinations of the plaintiffs against different combinations of the defendants. Table 1 attached to this opinion summarizes these “counts” and “claims,” The Court has already declined to certify the plaintiffs’ putative class claims (Dkt.454); this opinion addresses only their individual claims. To the extent that the Complaint suggests that each “count” sets forth a separate “claim” as to each plaintiff, it would be in error. A “claim for relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), “seeks redress of a distinct wrong.” *1090 NAACP v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287, 291 (7th Cir.1992). Many of what the plaintiffs assert are distinct claims that are more accurately characterized as distinct legal theories supporting a smaller set of legal claims. “Two legal theories sufficiently distinct that they call for proof of substantially different facts may be separate ‘claims,’ ” but “[o]ne set of facts producing one injury creates one claim for relief, no matter how many laws the deeds violate.” Id. at 292 . Thus, there are fewer than the 30-odd “claims” that the Complaint purports to assert. 20
Two other matters can be addressed before reaching the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims against the Y and will simplify that discussion. First, defendant Hite cannot be liable to any of the plaintiffs under Title VII (or the IHRA or DCHRA) because Title VII applies only to the conduct of employers, not individuals. See Passananti v. Cook Cnty., 689 F.3d 655 , 662 n. 4 (7th Cir.2012); Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 , 896 n. 2 (7th Cir.2012). By contrast, individuals may be liable under § 1981. Bray, 681 F.3d at 896 n. 2. For that-reason, the plaintiffs have asserted only their claims under § 1981 against defendant Hite. Further, plaintiffs Toles and Ward purport only to assert a pattern- and-practice claim against defendant Hite; they disavow any intention of asserting any claims that Hite discriminated against them directly. With respect to Ward, however, the defendants point out that Hite’s employment with the Y ended just two weeks after Ward’s employment began and that Ward makes no allegations against Hite in the Complaint. Ward responds that she is asserting a pattern-and-practice claim against Hite because of “Hite’s involvement” in putting into practice the policies that impacted Ward. She cites no authority, however, for the proposition that an individual can be responsible for a company’s policies and actions after that individual is no longer an employee, and the Court is aware of none. Accordingly, the Court agrees that summary judgment in favor of defendant Hite on any claim asserted by Ward is appropriate.
Second, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment purport to seek dismissal of, and judgment on, the Complaint “in its entirety.” As the Y effectively concedes, however, the defendants have not presented any argument for judgment in favor of the Y as to the disparate impact (unintentional discrimination) and pattern- and-practice claims of plaintiffs. See Reply, Dkt. 380 at 14 n.10. Accordingly, to the extent that the defendants’ motion sought summary judgment on those claims, the motions are denied. Contrary to the implication suggested in the plaintiffs’ briefs, however, that does not mean that the defendants have forfeited any subsequent argument that the evidence does not warrant judgment in their favor with respect to those claims.
B. Standards of Proof for Intentional Discrimination Claims
“Generally speaking, there are two ways of proving [ ] a claim [of intentional *1091 discrimination]: the ‘direct’ method of proof and the ‘indirect’ method of proof.” Collins, 715 F.3d at 999 (citing Naficy v. III. Dep’t of Human Sens., 697 F.3d 504, 509 (7th Cir.2012); but see also Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835, 863 (7th Cir.2012) (Wood, J. concurring) (arguing that the direct/indirect distinction is unnecessarily complicated and that “the time has come to collapse all these tests into one”). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on a disparate treatment claim under the “direct method” of proof, the plaintiffs must show that they suffered a materially adverse employment action, see Nichols v. S. III. University-Edwardsville, 510 F.3d 772, 779 (7th Cir.2007) (citations omitted), motivated by the employer’s racial discrimination. See Coleman, 667 F.3d at 845 . The plaintiffs may offer either direct or circumstantial evidence that both “point[s] directly to a discriminatory reason for the employer’s action,” Dass v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 675 F.3d 1060, 1071 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 F.3d 935, 939 (7th Cir. 2003)), and is “directly related to the employment decision.” Id. (citing Venturelli v. ARC Cmty. Sens., Inc., 350 F.3d 592, 602 (7th Cir.2003)).
Direct evidence typically consists of an “outright admission by the decision-maker that the challenged action was undertaken because of the [plaintiffs race].” Id. (citing Davis v. Con-Way Transp. Cent. Express, Inc., 368 F.3d 776, 783 (7th Cir.2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). That sort of evidence is rare, see e.g. Coleman, 667 F.3d at 845 (“ ‘smoking gun’ evidence of discriminatory intent is hard to come by”), and when an employer has not openly admitted to discrimination “the plaintiffs must construct a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that allows a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.” Brown, v. Advocate S. Suburban Hosp., 700 F.3d 1101, 1105 (7th Cir.2012) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Phelan v. Cook Cnty., 463 F.3d 773, 779 (7th Cir.2006)).
The Seventh Circuit has recognized three types of circumstantial evidence:
(1) suspicious timing, ambiguous oral or written statements, or behavior toward or comments directed at other employees in the protected group; (2) evidence, whether or not rigorously statistical, that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received systematically better treatment; [or] (3) evidence that the employee was qualified for the job in question but was passed over in favor of a person outside the protected class and the employer’s reason is a pretext for discrimination.
Good v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 673 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Darchak v. City of Chi. Bd. of Educ., 580 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir.2009)). A plaintiff may rely solely on circumstantial evidence to survive summary judgment, “but only if the circumstantial evidence presented points ‘directly to a discriminatory reason for the employer’s action.’ ” Id. (citing Cerutti v. BASF Corp., 349 F.3d 1055 , 1061 (7th Cir.2003), quoting Adams, 324 F.3d at 939 ).
The plaintiffs may also proceed under the familiar three-part burden-shifting method of indirect proof established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). To establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under this “indirect method,” the plaintiff has the initial burden of offering evidence that “(1) [they are] member[s] of a protected class, (2) [their] job performance met [the employer’s] legitimate expectations, (3) [they] suffered an adverse employment action, and (4)’ another similarly situated individual who was not in the protected class was treated more favorably than the plaintiff *1092 [or plaintiffs].” Coleman, 667 F.3d at 845 (citing Burks v. Wis. Dep’t of Trans., 464 F.3d 744, 750-51 (7th Cir.2006)). “Once a prima facie case is established, a presumption of discrimination is triggered.” Id. The burden then shifts to the employer to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the adverse employment action. Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 ). .“When the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff, who must present evidence that the stated reason is a ‘pretext,’ which in turn permits an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 ; Burks, 464 F.3d at 751 ).
C. Plaintiffs’ Statistical Evidence
The plaintiffs (other than Ward) briefly refer to statistical evidence developed by the plaintiffs’ retained expert, Dr. Mark R. Killingsworth, in support of their individual disparate treatment claims. The Court denied the defendants’ motion to strike Dr. Killingsworth’s reports and testimony as unreliable pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See Dkt. 454. But although the Court deems Dr. Killingsworth’s analysis sufficiently reliable to pass muster under Rule' 702, that analysis-by its own terms-does not say anything about whether the Y discriminated against these particular plaintiffs.
Whether statistical evidence can be relevant to the consideration of individual claims of intentional discrimination on summary judgment presents interesting questions. Fourteen years ago, the Seventh Circuit said in Adams v. Ameritech Servs. Inc., 231 F.3d 414, 423 (7th Cir. 2000), that the short answer to that question is “yes.” There, the Court of Appeals concluded that “statistical evidence can be very useful to prove discrimination in either [an individual disparate treatment claim or a discriminatory pattern or practice claim].” Id. The Adams court made clear, however, and a number of subsequent panels have reiterated, that statistical evidence will typically be useful only when offered in conjunction with other evidence of discrimination; standing alone, statistical evidence is generally insufficient to prove individual claims of intentional discrimination. See id.; see also, e.g., Baylie v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 476 F.3d 522, 525 (7th Cir.2007); Bennett v. Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 697 (7th Cir.2002); Cullen v. Ind. Univ. Bd. ofTrs., 338 F.3d 693, 701 (7th Cir.2003). Indeed, “it is unlikely that a pure correlation [between a protected classification and some materially adverse employment action, standing alone] would be enough to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination.” See Radas v. MCI System-house Corp., 255 F.3d 359, 363 (7th Cir. 2001). 21
The utility of statistical evidence in proving individual intentional discrimination claims may once again be open to question, however, in the wake of the Supreme *1093 Court’s opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2555 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)). In Wal-Mart , the Court rejected statistical evidence as an adequate basis to establish commonality in a putative class action asserted on behalf of approximately 1.5 million past and present female employees of Wal-Mart, holding that even statistical evidence showing a disparity in every one of Wal-Mart’s 3,400 stores would not suffice to show causation-that is, in the absence of a common policy or procedure, mere statistics could not “produce a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.” Id. at 2552 (emphasis in original). Wal-Mart was a class action, but the commonality inquiry necessarily focuses on whether aggregated statistical evidence of discrimination provides a link (in the words of the Court, whether there is a “glue”) between individual claims of discrimination and calls into question the role of statistical evidence in proving such claims. If class-wide statistical evidence does not provide a common answer to the question, then it is difficult to understand how it can be inferred from statistics drawn from the group as a whole that any particular individual actually suffered discrimination.
The impact of Wal-Mart in this regard is academic in the present case, however, because the plaintiffs’ expert does not purport to address the question of whether the Y discriminated against any specific individual, or even whether any particular supervisor or department discriminated against African American employees. Dr. Killingsworth’s own description of his assignment reveals that the question addressed by his analysis is “whether there is a clear pattern under which African-Americans as a group are systematically disadvantaged relative to others.” Report of Dr. Mark Killingsworth, Dkt. 405-1, at 1 (emphasis added). 22 Dr. Killingsworth hazards no opinions about the merits of any of the plaintiffs’ individual discrimination claims, and confirmed during his deposition that he had not done so. Specifically, Dr. Killingsworth testified:
“Q: Wouldn’t you agree that the — the whole point of a statistical analysis is to draw some generalizations and say on average what is the case, not to say something about an individual person?
A: Oh, that’s right. You can’t — well, certainly with this kind of analysis, you can’t say anything about individuals.”
Dkt. 304-5 at 9 (Dep. Tr. at 106:3-14). For their part, the plaintiffs do not rely heavily on Dr. Killingsworth’s statistical evidence; in connection with their summary judgment response, they cite the statistical evidence only to point out that it buttresses the evidence that the Y discriminated against “other employees” (see, e.g. Resp., Dkt. 334 at 13). The question presented here, however, is whether the Y intentionally discriminated against these employees.
As Baylie explains, consistent with the Court of Appeals’ acknowledgement in Adams that statistical evidence can be relevant in proving individual discrimination claims, such evidence can be *1094 relevant because “all inferences are statistical.” 476 F.3d at 523 . Statistical evidence — if it is sufficiently reliable and probative of the fact that discrimination accounts for an aggregate disparity— might, despite marginal probative value, tip the balance in a very close individual case in which it is coupled with other evidence “which does most of the work.” Id. at 524 . In this case, however, both the plaintiffs’ expert and the plaintiffs effectively acknowledge that it has little, if any, significance.
D. James Jones and Nicole Steels
Plaintiffs Jones and Steels assert claims of pay discrimination, discriminatory performance evaluations and merit increases, failure to promote, and retaliation. Jones also asserts a claim of discriminatory termination. Steels, on the other hand, alleges that she was constructively discharged from the Y and that Hite discriminated against her by refusing to allow her to telecommute from home after her maternity leave.
1. Steels’ Bankruptcy Proceedings
The defendants contend that Steels is judicially estopped from asserting her claims because she failed to disclose those claims on a bankruptcy petition she filed years prior to the instant suit. Specifically, on August 5, 2004, Steels filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 49, ¶ 72, and was represented by counsel through all stages of the bankruptcy proceedings. Id. On Schedule B of her petition, she was directed to identify “all contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including tax refunds, counterclaims of the debtor, and rights to setoff claims.” Id. at 49, ¶ 73. Another form required Steels to “[l]ist all suits and administrative proceedings to which the debtor is or was a party within one year immediately preceding the filing of [her] bankruptcy case.” Id. at 50, ¶ 73. Steels checked “none” on both of those forms. Id.
On September 29, 2009, the bankruptcy court granted Steels a discharge of her debts. Id. at 50, ¶ 75. On November 25, 2009, the bankruptcy court closed Steels’ case and discharged the trustee. Id. At no time while her case was open did Steels disclose her charge of discrimination or the existence of the claims she asserts in this case^ — which were filed on October 13, 2009, while her bankruptcy case remained open — to the bankruptcy court. Id. at 50, ¶ 74.
Steels did, however, disclose her claims to the bankruptcy court a year and a half later, after the defendants deposed her on March 7 and 8, 2011. Id. at 50, ¶ 76. During that deposition, the defendants provided Steels with her August 5, 2004, bankruptcy petition as an exhibit, specifically noting that Steels had failed to disclose her claims. Id. On July 1, 2011, Steels then filed a motion to re-open her bankruptcy case to amend the schedules to her petition. Id. at 51, ¶ 77. In that motion, Steels stated that she was “unaware of her obligation to inform counsel of the pending claim” against her former employer, and that she contacted her counsel upon becoming aware of the obligation to disclose her post-petition claim. Id.
Steels’ motion was granted on August 17, 2011, and her case was converted to Chapter 7. Id. at 51, ¶ 78. Thereafter, on August 20, 2011, Steels filed an amended schedule, which disclosed an employment discrimination claim worth $0 to $70,000. Id. On July 30, 2012, however, the bankruptcy court issued its decision finding that Steels’ claim was not part of her Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate because under the Bankruptcy Code, the estate’s assets are determined at the time of the filing of the petition, when Steels’ claims *1095 had not accrued, and not at the time of conversion. Bankr.Hr’g Tr. July 30, 2012, Defs. Br., Dkt. 415, Ex. B; see also Google, Inc. v. Cent Mfg., Inc., 316 Fed.Appx. 491 , 495 (7th Cir.2008) (“[A] cause of action arising after the bankruptcy estate is created belongs to the debtor, and normally the property of a Chapter 7 estate in a case that was converted from a Chapter 13 is determined by the debtor’s interest at the time the Chapter 13 case was filed, not when it was converted.”). Regardless of the bankruptcy court’s ruling, however, the defendants maintain that, because Steels failed to timely disclose her claims to the Bankruptcy Court, she should be judicially estopped from pursuing them now. See Mot., Dkt. 265 at 3.
“Judicial estoppel is a doctrine intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial process ... [and] applie[s] where intentional self-contradiction is being used as a means of obtaining [an] unfair advantage in a forum designed for suitors seeking justice, to prevent litigants from ‘playing fast and loose with the courts.’ ” Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir.1990) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.” Id. (citing Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 , 15 S.Ct. 555 , 39 L.Ed. 578 (1895)); see also Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446, 449 (7th Cir.2006) (holding that plaintiff was barred from realizing on her claims because she expressly denied having any legal claims when she filed her Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and failed to amend that petition).
For judicial estoppel “[t]o apply, (1) the latter position must be clearly inconsistent with the earlier position; (2) the facts' at issue must be the same in both cases; and (3) the party to be estopped must have prevailed upon the first court to adopt the position.” Urbanía v. Cent. States, Se. and Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 421 F.3d 580, 589 (7th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Hook, 195 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir.1999)). That said, “judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine,” Cannon-Stokes, 453 F.3d at 448 ; it “should not be used where it would work an injustice, such as where the former position was the product of inadvertence or mistake.” Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d at 642 ; see also, e.g., New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 753 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001) (“[I]t may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel ‘when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake.’ ”); Johnson Serv. Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 485 F.2d 164, 175 (5th Cir.1973) (“[T]he rule looks toward cold manipulation and not an unthinking or confused blunder.”).
The defendants initially argued that Steels did not have standing to pursue her claims because they belonged to her bankruptcy estate. However, the bankruptcy court determined that, because her bankruptcy had been converted to Chapter 7, the estate did not own the claims. 23 Bankr.Hr’g Tr. July 30, 2012, Defs. Br., *1096 Dkt. 415, Ex. B at 5. Nevertheless, the defendants maintain that the criteria for applying judicial estoppel are met here and, therefore, Steels should be barred from asserting her claims in this case. 24 Mot., Dkt. 265 at 8. Regardless of whether the claims actually belong to Steels’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, the defendants point out that (as the bankruptcy court found) Steels’ claims were “unquestionably property of [her] Chapter 13” bankruptcy estate when those claims accrued. Defs. Br., Dkt. 415 at 2. Steels failed to disclose her discrimination claims until the defendants confronted her with her deficient bankruptcy petition at her deposition, id, and only due to “a quirk” in the Bankruptcy Code did those claims cease to be assets of the bankruptcy estate. Id. That conclusion, the defendants argue, “end[ed] in a somewhat ... inequitable result.” Id. (citing Bankr.Hr’g Tr. July 30, 2012, Defs. Br., Dkt. 415, Ex. B at 6:14). According to the defendants, therefore, despite the fact that her claims do not belong to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, Steels should be judicially estopped from pursuing those claims in this Court lest she profit from their prior concealment. Id. at 3-4.
Steels, on the other hand, maintains that her bankruptcy petition was not “clearly inconsistent” with her claims. Resp., Dkt. 334 at 62. Steels points to the fact that when she filed her bankruptcy petition on August 5, 2004, her discrimination claims had not yet accrued, nor had she filed an EEOC charge. Id. Moreover, Steels’ bankruptcy plan was confirmed on September 22, 2004 — years before her first charge of discrimination. Id. Steels avers that she did not intentionally try to convince the bankruptcy court to accept an inconsistent position by failing to amend her petition-she was simply unaware of her obligation to supplement her petition with after-acquired property, and therefore, unintentionally omitted her claims. Id. at 63-64. In fact, Steels contends that as soon as she learned about the disclosure requirement, she “promptly sought leave to reopen the bankruptcy for the purpose of updating her disclosures.” PI. Br., Dkt. 414 at 2.
“Debtors have a continuing duty to schedule newly acquired assets while the bankruptcy case is open.” Rainey v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 466 Fed. Appx. 542, 544 (7th Cir.2012) (citing In re Waldron, 536 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2008)); see also Jaeger v. Clear Wing Prods., Inc., 465 F.Supp.2d 879, 882 (S.D.I11.2006) (“The duty to disclose is a continuing one that does not end once the forms are submitted to the bankruptcy court; rather, a debtor must amend his financial statements if circumstances change.”) (citation omitted). Moreover, “a debtor in bankruptcy is bound by her own representations, no matter why they were made, at least until the debtor moves to amend the disclosures and pay the creditors their due.” CannonStokes, 453 F.3d at 449 (emphasizing that the plaintiff had not taken the step to amend her disclosures). And as the Seventh Circuit has explained, judicial estoppel “raises the costs of lying” about those disclosures “by making [litigants] choose one position irrevocably,” CannonStokes, 453 F.3d at 448 (quoting Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420, 1428 (7th Cir.1993)), and is designed to “prevent the perversion of the judicial process.” Id. (citing In re *1097 Cassidy, 892 F.2d at 641 ). The issue, therefore, is whether Steels intentionally failed to amend her bankruptcy petition (and only did so after the defendants’ discovery of the deficiency) to realize on her discrimination claims, or whether her omission was due to inadvertence or mistake.
The court in Jaeger decided precisely this issue, on substantially similar facts. 465 F.Supp.2d 879 (S.D.Ill.2006). In that case, the plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy in May 2003, id. at 881 , and then suffered an injury at a concert a few months later, in November. Id. As a consequence, the plaintiff could not have disclosed her tort claim in her bankruptcy petition when she first filed it. Id. That said, the plaintiff conceded that she failed to disclose her claim even after she modified her bankruptcy plans “three times after the injury.” Id. (emphasis in original). The court, noting that “[t]he caselaw plainly holds that a debtor must amend his pleadings whenever circumstances change,” id. at 882 (citations omitted), nevertheless concluded “genuine issues of material fact ... remain[ed] as to whether [the plaintiffs] failure to disclose constituted ‘cold manipulation’ or ‘intentional contradiction’ as opposed to a ‘confused blunder’ or ‘simple error or inadvertence.’ ” Id. at 882 (citing Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1345, n. 7 (11th Cir.2006); Am. Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville v. FDIC, 710 F.2d 1528, 1536 (11th Cir.1983) (explaining that judicial estoppel applies to the “calculated assertion” of divergent positions)).
The Jaeger court noted that the plaintiff discovered “that she might need to disclose [her] pending lawsuit to the bankruptcy trustee” during a deposition in August 2006. 465 F.Supp.2d at 882, n. 5 . “Within three weeks, [the plaintiffs] bankruptcy counsel informed ... the Chapter 13 Trustee’s Office about [the] personal injury lawsuit,” id. who responded that the plaintiff did not need to amend her bankruptcy schedules, “since the claim accrued after the bankruptcy petition was filed.” Id. According to the court, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the record “suggested] that [the plaintiffs] failure to disclose was inadvertent oversight, not deliberate manipulation.” Id. at 882 . But see Barger v. City of Cartersville, Ga., 348 F.3d 1289, 1294-97 (11th Cir.2003) (affirming dismissal of monetary claims where the plaintiff, pursuing her discrimination claim when she filed for bankruptcy, failed to list the claim as an asset on her petition, and only sought to amend her petition after the defendants moved the district court to enter summary judgment on judicial estoppel grounds); Karraker v. Rentr-ar-Ctr., Inc., No. 02-2026, 2005 WL 2979652 , at *2-3 (C.D.I11. Nov. 7, 2005) (plaintiff judicially estopped from asserting wrongful termination claim where plaintiff was aware of the need to list pending litigation on his bankruptcy schedules, the case was proceeding at the time the plaintiff failed to disclose his claim, and the plaintiff failed to amend his bankruptcy petition prior to its dismissal).
Like the .plaintiff in Jaeger , Steels failed to amend her bankruptcy disclosures after her discrimination claims accrued. She promptly filed a petition to reopen her bankruptcy proceedings once she learned of the continuing disclosure requirement at her deposition. Whether Steels’ failure to disclose the discrimination claims she has asserted in this case was an intentional attempt to win in two courts, based on two clearly inconsistent positions, as opposed to an inadvertent mistake, is a genuine issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment. See, e.g., Jaeger, 465 F.Supp.2d at 885 . Accordingly, the defen *1098 dants’ motion for summary judgment on judicial estoppel grounds is denied.
2. Jones’ and Steels’ Failure-to-Promote Claims
Jones and Steels both allege that Hite and the Y failed to promote them for racially discriminatory reasons. The defendants contend that neither Jones nor Steels has any direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination to support their failure-to-promote claims, Mot., Dkt. 265 at 5, and that, to survive summary judgment, the plaintiffs must offer evidence that they actually applied for a promotion. Mot., Dkt. 269 at 2. See also Cardoso v. Robert Bosch Corp., 427 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir.2005) (plaintiff failed to make it past the prima facie stage on a failure-to-promote claim because he did not apply for the job openings at issue). According to the defendants, because neither plaintiff applied for a promotion, their claims fail as a matter of law. Mot., Dkt. 269 at 2; Mot., Dkt. 265 at 5.
In their combined response, the plaintiffs do not offer direct or circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination to support their failure-to-promote claims. Resp., Dkt. 334 at 50-52. Instead, the plaintiffs focus solely on the “application” element of their claims, countering the defendants’ argument by asserting that they do not need to show that they applied for a job opening or promotion because the Y utilized a “ ‘preferred candidate’ system, pursuant to which it would post positions after identifying the candidate it wanted ... to fill the position.” Id. at 51 (original emphasis).
A “[fjailure to promote can be an adverse [employment] action giving rise to liability ..., but the plaintiff must first show that she properly applied for the position.” Hill v. Potter, 625 F.3d 998, 1003 (7th Cir.2010) (internal citation omitted) (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 ; Jackson v. Cnty. of Racine, 474 F.3d 493, 501 (7th Cir.2007); Hudson v. Chi. Transit Auth., 375 F.3d 552, 558 (7th Cir.2004)). But, as the plaintiffs contend, it is also true that “[wjhen an employer uses a promotion system in which employees do not apply for promotions but rather are sought out by managers, the application requirement of the prima facie case is loosened somewhat.” Box v.A&P Tea Co., 772 F.2d 1372 , 1377 (7th Cir.1985) (citing Reed v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 613 F.2d 757, 761 (9th Cir.1980); Rodgers v. Peninsular Steel Co., 542 F.Supp. 1215, 1219-20 (N.D.Ohio 1982)). “In [that] situation, the plaintiff can establish the application element of a prima facie case by showing that, had [he or] she known of an ... opening, [he or] she would have applied.” Id. (citing Rodgers, 542 F.Supp. at 1220 ); Gordan v. City of Harvey, No. 07 C 5867, 2009 WL 2163233 , at *9 (N.D.I11. July 20, 2009) (plaintiff satisfied Box application element by “specifically expressing] an interest in being promoted to sergeant”).
But the “preferred candidate” approach the plaintiffs described is quite different than the recruitment of a specific candidate without affording any opportunity for others to apply for a position. Here, the Y posted the positions and other employees had an opportunity to apply for the position. That the Y had already identified someone who, it believed, met the criteria for the position does not suggest that the application process was a sham (and neither Jones nor Steels argues that it was). The Y’s identification of potential candidates, then, does not excuse employees from the requirement that they actually apply for a higher level job opening before claiming that they were discriminated against by the company’s decision to hire someone else to fill that opening. That the Y could have reclassified or up *1099 graded Jones’ position or considered him for the National Director of Staff Development position in the absence of an application is immaterial; what the Y could or might have done is insufficient to survive summary judgment on a claim for intentional discrimination. See Brown, 700 F.3d at 1104 (“[0]ur favor toward the non-moving party does not extend to drawing inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture.”); Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2011) (“conjecture alone cannot defeat a summary judgment motion” (citing Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 544 F.3d 752, 757 (7th Cir.2008))).
Steels’ failure-to-promote claim suffers from the same deficiency. See Resp., Dkt. 334 at 52. Like Jones, Steels only argues that the Y could have assigned her more responsibilities or considered her for the position of interim director after Hite resigned from the Y. Id. However, the record shows that Steels received two promotions during her employment with the Y, Reply, Dkt. 380 at 16, and that she never expressed interest in another promotion — not even after she knew the interim director position would be available after Hite’s resignation. Id. Accordingly, because neither Jones nor Steels offer proof that they applied for a promotion, their failure-to-promote claims fail as a matter of law.
3. Jones’ and Steels’ Performance Evaluation and Merit Increase Claims
Jones and Steels both allege that they were subject to discriminatory performance evaluations and merit increases during their employment with the Y. The defendants contend that neither plaintiff has direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination to prove their claims under the direct method, and, therefore, must proceed under the McDonnell Douglas indirect method of proof. Mot., Dkt. 269 at 3; Mot., Dkt. 265 at 5. Jones and Steels respond that they can prove their claims under either the direct or indirect method, and rely on a common set of direct and circumstantial evidence which allegedly demonstrates Hite’s bias toward African Americans. See Resp., Dkt. 334 at 19-22; 44; 49. The plaintiffs contend that these examples of conduct and comments by Hite suggest that “she held negative racial stereotypes regarding African Americans and treated them differently, [and] frequently undermin[ed] Jones and Steels with their coworkers in the [HR] Department.” Resp., Dkt. 334 at 19.
Material Adverse Employment Actions:
Although the plaintiffs allege separate claims for performance evaluations and merit increases, these issues are closely linked and rely on almost entirely the same set of evidence and purportedly similarly-situated employees. As the plaintiffs continuously argue throughout their brief, performance ratings were determinative of the annual merit increase that each employee received. Indeed, the Y issued guidelines setting a range of percentages for salary increases that directly corresponded to overall performance ratings. See PL 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 313 at 11-13, ¶¶ 17-18. For example, in 2005, an employee who received a performance rating of “exceeds expectations” would have been eligible to receive a merit salary increase between 3.1% and 4.9%. PI. 56.1 Resp., Dkt. 312 at 12-13, ¶ 17. Further, there is no evidence that either plaintiff (or potential comparator) received a merit increase outside the guidelines established by the Y, i.e., received a merit increase lower or higher than the range established under the guidelines for the performance rating they had received. In other words, if either plaintiff received a discriminatory *1100 performance evaluation or merit increase, those adverse employment actions would have taken place concurrently. At the outset, the defendants contend that the plaintiffs’ performance evaluation and merit increase claims fail because both Jones and Steels received positive ratings and merit increases during the entire duration of their employment with the Y, and, therefore, neither plaintiff experienced a “material adverse employment action” necessary to establish a claim. Mot., Dkt. 269 at 3; Mot., Dkt. 265 at 6. According to the defendants, neither plaintiff received a “negative” review, Mot. Dkt. 269 at 3, and even if they had, “negative performance evaluations, standing alone, are not cognizable adverse employment actions.” Mot., Dkt. 265 at 8 (citing De La Rama v. Illinois Dep’t of Human Seros., 541 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir.2008)). Moreover, both plaintiffs received positive merit increases as a result of their positive performance ratings. Reply, Dkt. 374 at 17. As such, again according to the defendants, the plaintiffs’ performance evaluation and merit increase claims cannot constitute adverse employment actions necessary to establish a claim.
The plaintiffs correctly respond, however, that the Y’s performance evaluations do not “stand alone” because an employee’s performance rating determined the percentage of merit increase that employee received for the year. Resp., Dkt. 334 at 45. To be material, “[t]here must be some tangible job consequence accompanying the” performance evaluation, Lucas v. Chi. Trans. Auth., 367 F.3d 714, 731 (7th Cir.2004), and “a materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation.” De La Rama, 541 F.3d at 685-86 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Here, the performance rating and merit increase guidelines are undisputed. Moreover, the defendants even contest the plaintiffs’ claims for discriminatory evaluations by arguing that the plaintiffs received favorable performance evaluations “which ... resulted in” annual merit increases. Reply, Dkt. 374 at 10. Accordingly, it is clear that the performance evaluations given by the Y were “material” for purposes of a claim of intentional discrimination, because they determined annual salary increases.
The issue for the plaintiffs’ performance evaluation and merit increase claims, then, is whether facially positive evaluations and merit increases, as the plaintiffs received, can constitute “adverse” employment actions sufficient to establish a claim for discrimination. The Seventh Circuit has explained that “receipt of an inadequate pay raise can ... amount to an adverse employment action.” Whigum v. Keller Crescent Co., 260 Fed.Appx. 910, 914 (7th Cir.2008) (citing Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 830 (7th Cir.2004)). More importantly, “context matters to the determination of what constitutes a materially adverse action.” Silverman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi, 637 F.3d 729, 741 (7th Cir.2011). “In some circumstances, even faintly positive evaluations could [amount to adverse actions] ... at least if the expectation in the organization or based on the employee’s' track record is that fair evaluations will be very positive.” Palermo v. Clinton, 437 FedAppx. 508, 511 (7th Cir.2011) (explaining that “faintly positive” evaluations could constitute adverse actions sufficient to support a retaliation claim). In other words, the issue of whether a positive performance evaluation and merit increase is adverse is relative to *1101 the context in which that evaluation and increase was given.
If, as the defendants aver, a facially positive performance evaluation and annual merit increase could never constitute a “materially adverse action,” the Y- could potentially assign every single African American employee a rating of “meets expectations” and corresponding merit increase, while awarding all Caucasian employees a rating of “exceeds expectations” and equivalent raise, and not run afoul of federal law — a proposition that is clearly incorrect. See, e.g., King v. Acosta Sales and Mktg., Inc., 678 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir.2012) (plaintiff established a pay discrimination claim where male employees . had received substantially greater increases in pay than women; “Even a dollar’s difference based on sex violates ... Title VII.”); Russell v. Principi, 257 F.3d 815, 819 (D.C.Cir.2001) (under defendant’s perverse logic, “an employer could award $500 bonuses to all white employees and $1 bonuses to all similarly situated black employees without running afoul of [federal law], because under such a discriminatory scheme no employee would be worse off in an absolute sense.”). Accordingly, whether the performance ratings and merit increases given to these plaintiffs were “materially adverse” is a disputed question of fact that is

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7226826. Public record. Not legal advice.