## Facts

- Mary C. Santelli worked for Electro-Motive (EMD), a division of General Motors, at EMD’s LaGrange, Illinois plant.
- The plant had two welding classifications: W51 (higher skill and the highest pay classification at the plant) and W52 (lower).
- Welders seeking certification had to pass test plates evaluated by a tester (visual inspection) and an engineer (laboratory inspection); EMD said test plates were reused after inspection.
- Santelli sought welding work and took a W52 welding test in November 1993; she spent about two days practicing or testing but failed two of three parts.
- Santelli attributed her experience in testing and her later treatment at work to sex-based bias, including remarks from a tester suggesting welding was not suitable for a woman and questioning why she wanted to be a welder.
- Santelli claimed EMD discriminated against her in the terms and conditions of employment, including transfers and assignments (such as assignment to a demanding welding area) and later removing her from welding work; she also claimed retaliation after she complained of sex discrimination, including discharge.
- EMD contended Santelli was treated like male employees with similar performance issues and that its actions were based on legitimate business and performance reasons.
- EMD moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on some claims and denied it on others, allowing certain sex-discrimination theories to proceed.
- EMD then moved to reconsider the portion of the summary-judgment ruling that denied relief to EMD, arguing the court used the wrong legal standards and misstated certain facts.

## Issues

1. Whether Santelli produced enough evidence under Title VII to require trial on sex-discrimination claims based on transfers, work assignments, and removal from welding work.
2. Whether Santelli’s remaining discrimination theories and her retaliation theories failed as a matter of law (including because they were not supported in her summary-judgment response).
3. Whether EMD was entitled to summary judgment because Santelli lacked proper “similarly situated” male comparators or could not show pretext.
4. Whether reconsideration was warranted based on EMD’s arguments that the court ignored non-Seventh Circuit authority, applied incorrect comparator and pretext standards, improperly found a triable dispute about a removal from an assignment, or misstated an incident EMD said mattered.

## Decision

- The court granted EMD’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
- The court allowed certain Title VII sex-discrimination claims to proceed, including claims tied to allegedly discriminatory transfers/assignments and removal from welding work, where a reasonable jury could find disparate treatment and pretext.
- The court entered summary judgment for EMD on other asserted discrimination theories (including certain testing/training-related theories) and on retaliation theories where Santelli did not present sufficient evidence or did not meaningfully respond to EMD’s arguments.
- The court denied EMD’s motion to reconsider the partial denial of summary judgment, leaving the surviving discrimination claims in place.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact; the court views evidence in the nonmovant’s favor and does not decide credibility.
- Title VII disparate-treatment claims may be analyzed using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting method when relying on circumstantial evidence.
- An adverse employment action is not limited to a pay cut or formal demotion; a lateral transfer or reassignment may qualify if it materially worsens the terms and conditions of employment.
- “Similarly situated” comparators generally must be comparable in material respects (such as job responsibilities, standards, and relevant decisionmakers), but exact identity is not required where the evidence supports a reasonable inference of unequal treatment.
- Pretext may be shown by evidence that the employer’s stated reasons lacked a factual basis, did not actually motivate the action, or were insufficient to motivate it; inconsistent explanations and differential treatment can support an inference of discrimination.
- Failure to develop or respond to an argument at summary judgment can result in dismissal of that claim.
- A motion to reconsider is not a chance to reargue issues already decided; it is reserved for clear legal error, newly discovered evidence, or similar grounds.

## Conclusion

In Santelli v. Electro-Motive, the Northern District of Illinois issued a mixed summary-judgment ruling in a Title VII sex-discrimination and retaliation case arising from a welder’s testing, assignments, and removal from welding work, dismissing retaliation and other unsupported theories while allowing certain sex-discrimination claims to proceed, and it later denied the employer’s motion to reconsider the partial denial of summary judgment.


Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 136 F.Supp.2d 922 (2001)