Valentine Akpa v. Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, and NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 6, 2024*
Decided March 6, 2024
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2832
VALENTINE AKPA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL
HEALTHCARE, and
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 18 C 7512
Charles P. Kocoras,
Judge.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 23-2832 Page 2
O R D E R
Valentine Akpa appeals the summary judgment rejecting his claims that
Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare1 did not
select him for a chaplain-residency program because of his race (Black) and national
origin (Nigerian). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court concluded
that Akpa failed to produce evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that
Northwestern’s proffered reasons for its hiring decisions were pretext for
discrimination. We affirm.
We describe the events based on the properly submitted facts, viewed in the light
most favorable to Akpa and in accordance with the district court’s local rules. See Lockett
v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016, 1022 (7th Cir. 2019); N.D. Ill. R. 56.1(e). On February 13, 2018,
Akpa emailed the Clinical Pastoral Education program at Northwestern to inquire
about its summer program and available residency positions. An administrative
assistant replied, informing him that spots in the summer program were available. On
February 24, Akpa began submitting application materials for the residency program
and within a week completed his application.
By this time, Northwestern was far along in the recruitment process for the
residency program. This effort was led by Chaplain Mark Bradley, the Manager of
Spiritual Care and Education at Northwestern, who oversaw the residency program.
When Akpa first contacted Northwestern, Bradley already had made three offers to fill
the program’s four available residency spots. And these three offers all had been
accepted when Akpa submitted his application materials, on February 24. By this time,
Bradley and his team also had decided that the fourth spot should be filled by one of
two people already interning at Northwestern—either HaLana Thompson, a Black
woman, or Stiofan O’Murchadha, a white man.
On March 20, Akpa received an email stating that the interview process for the
residency program had been completed. Akpa responded, asking for elaboration since
he had not been interviewed at all. The assistant responded that offers had been
accepted and “our residency program has been filled and is now closed.” Northwestern
admits that this was an incorrect statement, that they continued to receive applications,
and that they later interviewed Thompson, O’Murchadha, and one other candidate. The
1 Northwestern Memorial Hospital is a subsidiary of Northwestern Memorial
Healthcare. We refer to them collectively as “Northwestern.”

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 23-2832 Page 3
next month, Bradley offered the last residency position to Thompson, and she accepted
the offer.
When asked at a deposition about his hiring decisions, Bradley testified that he
thought Thompson was more qualified than Akpa. He later attested that he was not
impressed with the reputation of the program where Akpa previously completed
chaplain educational work, and so he was concerned that Akpa would not be prepared
for the rigor of Northwestern’s program. Conversely, Thompson was already
successfully completing an internship at Northwestern, and Bradley—in his capacity as
her supervisor—believed that she would be a good fit in the residency program.
Once Akpa received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he filed his complaint in federal court, alleging that
Northwestern refused to hire him because of his race and national origin, in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He alleged
that his rejection email, falsely informing him that the residency positions had been
filled, was evidence of pretext, given that Northwestern continued to interview
candidates.
The case then proceeded through a protracted discovery process. After the
defendants produced relevant documents, including the residency applications and
email correspondence with the hired individuals, Akpa moved for a default judgment
on grounds that the documents were fraudulent. Akpa’s motion was denied, but he
continued to assert that the defendants’ documents were falsified or inaccurate.
Akpa next moved to compel the depositions of the four individuals selected for
Northwestern’s residency program. A magistrate judge who supervised discovery
denied the motion. She explained that the residents took no part in the decision not to
hire him and thus lacked relevant information about his case. Akpa objected, insisting
that the depositions related to his theory of pretext. He wanted to ask the residents
about the timing of their hiring so that he could show that his rejection email was
dishonest. For instance, if Thompson testified that she was not hired until after
Northwestern received the EEOC charge of discrimination in June 2018, he believed he
could prove that Northwestern hired her (a Black woman) to cover up its racial
discrimination against him. Then-District Judge Lee overruled Akpa’s objection and
adopted the magistrate judge’s ruling to deny the motion to compel.
Akpa continued to file motions to compel discovery, contending, for instance,
that the format of the emails (as “.msg” files) obscured relevant metadata and that

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 23-2832 Page 4
producing the documents in their original format (as “.pst” files) would allow him to
confirm the date and time of the emails concerning residency applications and offers.
Another magistrate judge denied the motion in part because an in camera review of the
documents confirmed that Akpa’s contentions were merely speculative. Akpa objected
to this order, and Judge Lee again overruled the objection, adopting the magistrate
judge’s ruling in full.
Discovery continued with competing experts. Northwestern’s expert in data
analysis attested in a declaration that the produced emails reflected accurate dates,
times, and senders/recipients. Akpa submitted a report from his expert, who opined
that the details concerning all but two relevant emails were accurate and that it was
inconclusive whether those two emails had been manipulated.
District Judge Kocoras, who had been reassigned the case, granted
Northwestern’s motion for summary judgment. The judge noted that an assessment of
the prima facie case of discrimination often overlaps with the issue of pretext, see, e.g.,
Scruggs. v. Garst Seed Co., 587 F.3d 832, 838 (7th Cir. 2009), and so he proceeded directly
to the pretext inquiry. And the undisputed evidence, he determined, showed that
Northwestern had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting Thompson
instead of Akpa. The judge noted Bradley’s statements that Akpa’s prior experience did
not match the rigors of Northwestern’s program; that the final residency spot should go
to a then-intern with whom Bradley was familiar and had personally supervised; and
that Thompson was better qualified.
On appeal, Akpa has not meaningfully developed the arguments in his brief,
see F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8), but we touch upon the two arguments we can discern. First,
with respect to the summary judgment ruling, Akpa argues that the court overlooked
and misconstrued his expert evidence, which, he says, supports his pretext argument.
He maintains that his expert’s report shows that Northwestern altered the dates of its
emails to Thompson to predate its receipt of the EEOC discrimination charge.
According to Akpa, Northwestern hired Thompson after learning about the EEOC
charge and hired her only to conceal its discrimination against him.
Akpa reads too much into his expert report. His expert found no conclusive
proof that Northwestern altered its emails. The expert may have flagged two emails,
but she could not conclude that either email was manipulated. Akpa’s theory—that
Northwestern hired Thompson to cover up its discrimination and then doctored its
offer email to Thompson—simply is “too divorced from the factual record” to create a
genuine issue of material fact. Marnocha v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc.,

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 23-2832 Page 5
986 F.3d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted); see also Matthews v. Waukesha
County, 759 F.3d 821, 827 (7th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “speculation and conjecture”
about pretext cannot overcome summary judgment).
Akpa also challenges the denial of his motions to compel more discovery so that
he could show, consistent with his reading of his expert’s report, that Northwestern
deliberately altered documents to cover up the discrimination. But district courts have
broad discretion in managing discovery, James v. Hyatt Regency Chi., 707 F.3d 775, 784
(7th Cir. 2013), and here Judge Lee properly evaluated Akpa’s requests to depose the
residents and receive files in his desired format, finding that the discovery sought was
duplicative and disproportionately burdensome to its potential value, especially given
the extensive discovery already conducted. See id.
We have evaluated Akpa’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --