In Hagen v. Fond du Lac School District, a female principal in her 50s alleged that the District discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex after the District reassigned her from a high school to an elementary school, which came with a reduction in pay, and hired a younger male administrator for her former position. The District argued that it had reassigned her because she was not making progress on her goals at the high school and would be “a better fit” at the elementary school and replaced her high school position with the younger male administrator because he had proven himself to be effective in the areas that required attention at the high school.
The female principal alleged sex discrimination by pointing to the superintendent’s participation in an informal lunch group comprised mostly of male administrators under the age of 50 and the superintendent’s acts of supposed favoritism toward members of the group. The court rejected the principal’s argument regarding the lunch group, finding that the supposed acts of favoritism were unsubstantiated and that no reasonable jury could infer that the superintendent reassigned the female principal on the basis of her sex.
For the claim of alleged age discrimination, the principal pointed to the male principal’s age (under 40) and lack of experience. Further, she noted that the administrator had invited the male principal to the lunch group around the same time he was offered the position at the high school. However, the court also rejected these arguments, finding that temporal proximity alone is typically insufficient to prove pretext and that the District had provided multiple non-discriminatory reasons for her reassignment.
Although this decision was issued on a non-precedential basis, it is important as it highlights the evidentiary burden on plaintiff employees when claiming discrimination. In this case, the school district’s documentation of the female principal’s performance concerns, paired with the documentation of the male principal’s performance strengths, was critical to its success in the case. This serves as a good reminder to all employer school districts to adequately document the reasons for any personnel changes.
Source: Hagen v. Fond du Lac Sch. Dist., No. 24-1688, 2025 WL 1703668 (7th Cir. June 18, 2025)
