## Facts

- Lionel Bordelon served as principal of Kozminski Community Academy in Chicago Public Schools from 1993 until his contract was not renewed; he was 63 at the time of nonrenewal.
- The Board of Education supervised the school system, but the school’s Local School Council (LSC) had authority to hire, evaluate, and renew the principal’s contract.
- In 2009, the Board hired Dr. Judith Coates as Chief Area Officer and Bordelon’s supervisor; Bordelon claimed she sought to remove him.
- A former executive assistant testified Coates possessed a list described as “older black principals to be disciplined,” including Bordelon; the listed principals led low-performing schools.
- In late 2010, Coates initiated disciplinary action against Bordelon for alleged insubordination and later rated him “needing improvement,” citing academic probation and declining test scores.
- Coates reassigned Bordelon to home with pay pending investigation of allegations including asbestos-tile replacement issues, purchasing irregularities, and interference with computer access to records.
- Kozminski was described as chronically underperforming, with significant discipline problems.
- On January 28, 2011, the LSC voted not to renew Bordelon’s contract, citing low test scores and disciplinary problems.
- Bordelon alleged age bias based on (a) the “older black principals” list, (b) an alleged remark that it was time for him to “give it up,” and (c) an affidavit relaying other principals’ complaints that older principals received less support; the affidavit was excluded as hearsay.

## Issues

1. Whether Bordelon produced sufficient admissible evidence for a reasonable jury to find that his contract nonrenewal occurred “because of” his age, in violation of the ADEA.
2. Whether alleged age animus by a supervisor could be attributed to the LSC’s nonrenewal decision under a cat’s-paw/undue-influence theory.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Board.
- The court held Bordelon failed to present sufficient admissible evidence that age was the but-for cause of the LSC’s nonrenewal decision.
- The court rejected the cat’s-paw/undue-influence theory because the record showed substantial, independent, performance-based reasons supporting nonrenewal and no showing that the LSC’s judgment was displaced.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADEA, a plaintiff must present evidence permitting a reasonable inference that age was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.
- At summary judgment, a plaintiff must rely on admissible evidence; hearsay assertions offered for their truth may be excluded and cannot create a genuine fact dispute.
- Stray remarks, subjective impressions, or ambiguous statements are insufficient, without stronger supporting evidence, to prove discriminatory causation.
- A cat’s-paw/undue-influence theory requires evidence that a biased supervisor’s actions meaningfully caused the ultimate decision by the formal decisionmaker; independent, well-supported reasons for the decision can defeat causation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because Bordelon’s evidence of age bias was largely inadmissible or too attenuated, and the LSC’s nonrenewal decision was supported by documented, independent performance and discipline concerns, defeating both but-for causation and any cat’s-paw attribution theory.


Bordelon v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chi., 811 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2016)