H on. D avid R

. H ernd o n , C hiefJ ud ge ofthe Southern  Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2768 H ARRIE TT E LLIS, etal. , P la intif f-A pp ella nts, v. CCA OF T ENNES S EE LL C, doi ng busi ness as C O RRECTIO NS C ORPORATI ON O F A MERI CA, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:08- cv-254

— Sarah EvansBarker, Judge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 10, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 9, 2011

B efore F L A U M a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd H E R ND ON, D istrict Judge.  F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . The pl aint i ff s i n thi s ca se a re form er nu rses w ho w ork ed i n th e hea lth care u nit of a2 N o. 10

- 2768 p rivately r un j ail

. Th ey m a in tain th at th eir em p loyer, defe nd ant CCA o fTennesse e LLC ( “CC A ”) , subj ecte d th em to r ac i aldisc r i m i na ti o n a nd a ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm ent, i n vi ol ati on o fTi tl e VI Io f t h e Civi l Ri ghts A ct o f 1 9 64 an d 42 U .S.C . § 19 81 . Th ey als o a lleg e t h at th eir em plo ym ent r el atio nshi p ended wh en CCA co nstr ucti vel y t er m i na te d the i r e m pl o y m en t f o r c o m pl aini ng about probl em s a t the jai l, i n vi ol ati on o fa sta te w hi stl ebl ower l aw . The di str i ct c ourtgr anted C CA ’ s m oti on f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t
. We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und The p l ai nti ff s a re H ar ri ettEl l i s, Patr i ci a F or re st, Sha von J one s, an d De lores M cN eil

. A llof th e p lai nt iffs are A f rican- A m er i can, and theyal l worke d as nurs es at a m edi um - secur i ty cor re cti onalf aci l i ty know n as M ar i on County J ail I I
. Fo ur m or e pl ainti ff

- nurses bel ow d i d not appe alfr o m the di st r i ctco ur t’ s su m m ar y j udg m en t or d er , an d so w e o m it th em from ou r d isc u ss ion . (W ou ld that pla i nti ff s had done the sa m e. I nstea d, th ei r bri ef re gul ar l y r efer s t o allo fthe nurses co l l ecti vel y, despi te the ind i vi du alnatur e o ftheir legalcl ai m s a nd despi te th e f ac t th atha l fthe i r numbe r ha ve dr o pped o uto fthe su i t. ) The j ai l wher e pl aint i ff s wor k ed i s m an ag ed an d oper ate d by defendant CC A , pursuant to a co ntract be twe e n i ta n d th e Ma r i o n C o u n t y S h e r i ff

. T o s t a fft he j ai l ’ s m edi cal u ni t, CC A em plo ys a doct or, psycho l ogi sts , and nurses. The st affo perat es u n d er the supervi si on o f a hea lth services ad m inistrator. Du ring the i r tenure with CC A , pl ai nti ff s m ai ntai n that they endu re d severa l i nci dents o fr ace-base d discr i m i na-N o. 10

- 2768 3 ti on a nd were subj ecte d t o a hos ti l e workenvi ro nm ent. Th e fi r s t i n c i d e n t i s a n e a r l y - 2 0 0 5 c h a n g e th a t C C A mad e to the j ai l ’ s st affi ngpo l i cy. P rior t o 2 00 5, nur se s atthe j ai l worke d i n one ofthr ee pe rm anentl y a ssi gned shi fts. A ll ofthe pl aint i ff s, o r a l l b uto ne

— the r e c o r d i s no t clear

—, worke d on the fi rs t o ftho se shi fts, the day shi ft. Te ns i o n a r o s e a mon gthe shi ft s . P l a i nt i ffF o r r e s t ’ s de posi ti on put the si tuati on i n conte xt: Q. You sai d ever ybo dy w as tal ki ng ab out th e f act th atthe fi r sts hi ft peo pl e th o ug hts ec o nd a nd thi rd shi fts w er e s l acke rs , r i ght? A
. W ell, w e com p lai ne d abou t tha t the y d idn ’t get som e of the w or k done that w e know th ey shoul d have g ott en done. * * * Q. A nd thatw as a co m m onl y hel d bel i efbyfi rs tshi ft peo ple ? A. Y e s . A n d I ’ m s u r e th e s e c o n d s h i ftfe l t th e s a me way abo ut

— i n nursi ng, Id on’ t care w hat i t is
. . . ea ch sh ift is g oin g t o c om p lain t a b ou t th e ot h er s h ift

. . . . It wa s c o mm o n i n tha t f a c i l i t y f o r e v e r yb o dy to be com pla i ni ng ab out the ne xt shi ft. There w er e al so al l ega ti ons that nurses on th e fi rs t sh i ft

— t h a t is, plaintiff s

— wer e r ac i st s. To r es po nd t o the tensi on a m ong the s hi fts, CC A ’ s r egi onal d i re cto r of heal th s e r v i c e s , Mar y Ga r ne r, a nn o un c e d in e a r l y 20 05 tha t a l l nu r s e s wo ul d b e a s s i g ne d t o r o t a t i ng s hi ft s o n a m onth- to- m onth ba si s. That m eans that al l n urse s a t va r i o us t i m es ha d t o wor ko n a l l thr ee s hi fts, a nd the4 N o. 10

- 2768 p olic y w as ex ec u te d su c h t h a t th e s am e n u rs es w ou ld not al w ays work w i th o ne ano ther

. That m ake s s ense; i m agine that A and B w or k tog ether i n W eek1 and res pect one anothe r’ s wo rkethi c. Duri ng a subsequent w eek w h en the tw o do not w or k t oge ther, A i s l ess l i kel y t o com pla in thatB i s a poorworke r and m or e l i kel y t o c h a l k up u n c o mp l e t e d t a s k s t o a b u s y s h i fto r s o me othe r i rr egul ar i ty. A l though the effect ofthe shi ft- change pol i cy w as to spl i t up a predom i natel y b l ack sh ift, pl ai nti ff s do not p o i n tt o e v i d e n c e th a tth e c h a n g e w a s ma d e f o r d i s c r i mi nator y r eas ons . I nd eed, the pol i cy appli ed to al l nurse s. Rather, p lai nti ff s focus on how the c hange m ade them feel. A gain, plaintiff Forrest: “[ T ]he reason w e w ere up setabo ut i t i s be cause ofthe fact thatday- shi ft nurs es w er e m os tly bla c k, an d [G ar n er ]
. . . w as sp litt in g u s u p . . . . You go t e i ght b l ac k n urse s, so l et’ s br eakthem up so th ey d on ’t h av e t h e, yo u kn ow , th e p ow er .” Pl ai ntiffs al so poi nt to a seco nd i nci dent ofal l ege d ra ci aldi scr i m i nati on. I n A pr il 2 006, the heal th se rv i ces ad m in ist ra to r, C ar m en C op ely , l eft h er p os itio n atth e jail. Fol l owing Copely ’ s depa rt u re, a si x-page exce rpt f ro m a b oo k a b ou t m an ag em en t w as fou n d in h er offic e. See K enneth Bl anchard, W illiam Oncken, J r. , and H al B u rro w s, T HE O NE M INUT E M AN AG ER M EE T S T HE M ONKEY5 , 55, 6 8, 8 2, 9 4, 1 12 ( 19 89 )
. The b o o kl i k en s m onke ys to w or kpl ace probl em s, as i n “ther e i s a m onke y on m y bac k.” T he p oint of th e book i s t o te a c h m an agers t o e mp o we r s ub o r d i n a t e s t o s o l v e p r o b l e ms

— m anage thei r own m onke ys

— ra th erthan effecti vel y m or ph into subor dinat es them sel ves. Id. at29

- 30.N o. 10

- 2768 5 N ot h in g a b ou t t h e e x c er p t fro m C op ely ’s o ffice co u ld r ea so nabl y c o nv eya c o nt r ar y i m pr es si o n. Her e a r e th e conte nts. Page 1 c on si sts o fa m an si tting athi s desk an d l ooking rath er harried

. Th e c au se is evi d en t, for a m onke y i s p er ched on the m an’ s s houl ders, and sev er al othe rs ar e m akin g ra thera nuis ance o fthem sel ves; they ar e fussi ng with pa p er s i n the m an’ s in-bo x, ti pp i ng o ver hi s t ra sh can, and w ar ring o vera tel ephon e. Pages 2 thro ugh 4 o fthe excer pt cont ain m anage m ent a phori sm s, o ne pe r pa g e. Pa g e 2 r ea ds, “T he m o r e y o u g etr i d o fy o ur peop le’ s m o nk ey s, the mor e ti m e y o u ha ve f o r y o ur peopl e. ” The a phori sm o n page 3 r eads, “Allm onke ys m us t be ha ndl ed atthe l o wes t o r g an i zat i o na l l ev elc o nsisten t w ith th eir w elf are!” Som eon e h a s u nd erlin ed th e p rin te d w or d s “ lo w es t o rg an iza tio n al lev el” an d liste d e m p loy ee -gr ou p s w ith in th e jail

— m ental he al th, do ct o r s an d p hy si ci ana ss i st an ts , c l er k s, a nd nurses . The f ourt h page ’s ap h or i sm adm oni shes m anage rs to “[ p]r acti ce ha nd s- offm anage m ent a s m uch as possibl e a nd hands-o n m anage m ent a s m uch as necessa r y. ” H er e, s o m eo ne ha s unde r l i ne d “ ha nds

- o ff ” an d “h an ds- o n. ” The fi fthpa g e co nt ains a s um m ar y o f“ f o ur rul es f orm onke y m anage m en t.” Each ofthe rul es ex p lain s h ow m an ag er s s h ou ld su p er vis e t h eir p eo p le in ad d re ss in g w or kp lac e c h alle n ge s. T h e s ix th p a ge is ber eft o fp rim ate s o r peopl e a nd i s g ear ed to w ar d prom o tinge ffec ti ve t i m e- m an ag ement
. Evenwi th o utthe co nt ex t pr o vi ded bythe b o o k, i t i s cl ea r fr o m the excer pt that m o nk e y s a r e wo r k pl a c e c ha l l e ng es, an d t h at p eo p le

— non- m eta phori cal l y r efer re d to as “p eo ple ”

— ar e no t be i ng co m pared to m onke ys. W i thin6 N o. 10

- 2768 th e bo o k ’ s co ns truct, b o sse s ha ve pe o pl e, a nd e ve r y o ne has m onke ys. Pl ai nti ffs feelthe excer pt and m ar gi nal i a a re r aci st, an d they seem to m aintain that the ex cerp t’s discov ery hel ped spark a ho sti l e workenv iro nm ent. The l att er noti on i s co nceptual l y s ound, as w ri ti ngs m ay be use d in w ay s u n in te n d ed by au th or s. Se e, e . g. , Salil T rip at h i, E nraged by M ado nna and N ic ole, N EW S T AT ES MAN 28 ( S ept
. 2 0, 1 99 9) ( di sc us singthe o bj ec ti o n o fHi ndus t o the use o f a v erse f ro m the B hag ava dgita i n Stan ley K ub rick’s Eyes Wi deSh ut )
. O n e c a n e a s i l y i ma g i n e th a to th e r e mplo yee s in a work pla ce m i ght hij ack the a nthro pom or phic m onke y m anage m ent s ket ch and use i t for ra c isten d s. Se eA m an v. C or tFu r ni t ureRe nt al Corp. , 85 F. 3d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 8 2 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( o b s e r v i n gth a ti t“ h a s b e c o me ea si ert o c o atv ar i o us f o r m s o fdi sc r i m i na ti on wi ththe appearance o fpro pri ety ” be cause t h e threa t o fl i abi l i ty takes tha t whi chwas o nc e o ve r t an d m ak es i t su bt le)

. Of c o ur s e , the p o t e nt i a l f o r e xp r o pr i a t i o n do e s n o te s t ablish th at th e m a t e r i al is ra c ist
. Cf. i d. a t 10 83 ( r ea so ni ng that the use o f“co de w or d s,” wh en co m bi ned w i th o ther ev i den ce , c o ul d s uppo r t ani nfer en ce o fr ac i ala ni m us ). Pl ainti ff s cl aim t h at ther e was m or e in thi s ca se: they sa y tha t th e nur se s wer e r efer r ed to a s m o nk ey s o ve r the j ai l ’ s i nt er co m b y t wo di ffer en t CCA e m pl o y ee s. Pl ainti ff s’ c ha r ac te rizat i o n, ho wev er, i s uns uppo r te d b y the re cor d evi dence thattheyci te. The ev id en ce ind i cate s that tw o em plo yee s use d the word m onke ys w hen they m ade c om m en ts o ve r the j ai l ’ s i nt er co m . Howev er, the re cor d does no t ind i cate thatt h e w or d w as used to r efer to nurses o r any s ubset ofnurse s ( e . g. , p l a i nti f f s , a s o p-N o. 10

- 2768 7

A n o th e r o f t h e n u r se s w h o d i d n o t a p p e a l th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s 1 s um m ar y j udgm en tr ul i ng a l s o s aw the e m pl oye e i n ques t i on. posed to al l o fthe w or ke rs a t that j ai l ) , nordoes the re cor d put the sta tem ents i n any ki nd o fm eani ngful conte xt. S ubs eque ntt o the i nc i den t invol vingthe mana g ement ex ce r pt, o ne o fthe pl aint i ff s o bserve d wor k er s atthe j ai l wea r i ngc l o th ing embl az o ne d wi ths y m bo l s o fthe con fede ra cy. Specifi cally, i n Sep tem ber 2006 , plaintiff Ell i s o b s e r v e d a j a i l e mpl o y e e we a r i nga T

- s hi r ttha t conta i ned a r epres entat i on o fa confed er at e fl ag on i t. 1 T h e e m p loy e e w as n oton e o f E llis’s su p er vis or s n or d id the e m plo yee sup er vi se any o therpl ai nti ff

. El l i s r epo r te d the i nc i den t, a nd the r eco r d a ppea r s to b e si l en t as t o wh a t r e s p o n s e , i f a n y, wa s ma d e b y C C A. O n a s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n, t o o , E l l i s o b s e r v e d a d i ffe r e n te mp loy ee w ear i ng a shi rtdecor ate d w i th the co nfe derat e fl ag. That e m plo yee al so w as n ot a supervi soro f El l i s o r o th e r n u r s e s , a n d th e r e s p o n s e o fma n ag ement is und er-spe cifi e d i n th e record ( althou gh i t ap p ears li m ited d iscipli na ry action w as taken ). The fi na l i nc i den t r el at ed to di sc r i m i na ti o n th at p l ainti ff s hi gh l i ght i s a n encounte r that pla i nti ffJ ones had w i th a d oct oratthe j ai l

. The ti m i ng o fthe eve nt has not been m ade cl ear . A t s om e po in t, Jones w as tal ki ng with a do c t o r ab o u ta n i n m a t e a tth e j a i l w h o s e l a s tn a me wa s C o l e . J o n e s a s k e d wh a t th e i n ma t e ’ s fi r s tn a me wa s , a n d th e d o c t o r r e p l i e d e i th e r th a t th e fi r s tn a me w as “bl ack as c oa l” or thati t was “bl ack ass co al

. ” J ones fi l ed a c om pla i nt a ga in st the doct orafterthe i nci dent,8 N o. 10

- 2768

an d m an ag ementg av e a co py o f th e co m pl aintt o the doctor

. The docto r apol og i zed to J ones but i n d oing so to ld h er th at sh e s h ou ld letth e d oc to r kn ow d ire c tly if he s a i d a ny thingo ffe ns i v e . J o ne s , a pp ar entl yu nh a pp y th atthe wri tt enc o m pl aintwas tur ne d o ve r t o the doctor, fi l ed another com pla i nt al l eging tha t s he was experi enci ng a host i l e workenvi ro n m ent. ( The re sponse, if an y, to th e fo llow -u p c o m p lain t is n otinc lu d ed in th e re c or d .) The disc ri m i nati on that pla i nti ff s conte nd they suffer ed w as no t the cau se of their d ep artu re fr om CC A
. Rat he r, they saytheywere constru cti vel y di schar ged f or being w hi stl ebl owers. Pl ai nti ff s co ntend they w er e r etal i ate d against a fterco m pla i ni ng ab out pri vacyvi ol ati ons, i m properal ter ati ons ofm edi calr ecord s, i m proper hand l i ng o fi nm ate co m pla i nts, and m edi cati on erro rs . Theirbr i efi ng i s l ess than c l earas to pre ci sel y what r etal i ato ryact s CCA underto ok, and the m att erhas not be ent ee d up b y the pa r ti es . Pl aint i ffEl l i s says tha t sh e w as su sp en d ed f o r r ep orting (i nt erna ll y) anoth er nu rse’s m edi calerr ors. Pl ai nti ffJ ones was gi ven a “di sgust ed l o o k ” byhe al ths er vi ce s admi ni st r at o r Co pely a t o ne po in t. Those a re the onl y s peci fi c al l ege d i nci dents o f retaliati on th at p lain t if fs highli gh t (or w e pe rceive), al though pl ai nti ff s a l so conte nd thatthe 200 5 s hi ftch an g e po l i cywas a n a cto fr et al i at i o n. Eventual l y, pla i nti ff s deci ded theyco uld no l onge r w or k a t the j ai l

. In Septe m ber20 06, pl ai nti ffJ ones r es i g ne d he r e m pl o y m en t, s ta tingi n a wri tten co m m uni ca ti o n t o the he al ths er vi ce s ad m ini st r at o r tha t th eN o. 10

- 2768 9 d ec isio n w as d u e t o “ in t o l er ab le w or kin g c on d itio n s.” Plaintiff s E ll is and Forrest resigned a few w eeks la t e r. Pl ainti ffM cN ei l r esigned the f ol l owing J anuary ; her re si gnati on l ett err el i ed pri m ar i ly on pro fess i onalvi ol ations th ats he o bs er ve d, i ndi ca tingtha t sh e woul d put he r nur singl i ce ns e i n j eo par dy i fs he r emai ne d. S he a l s o st a t e d th a ts h e e x p e r i e n c e d “ r a c i a l a n d d i s c r i min at or y c on d itio n s.” A ftertheyqui t, pl ai nti ff s fi l ed sui t a nd thei r oper ati ve com plain t com pri sed twel ve counts. CC A m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm en t, pursuant to Rule 56 ofthe Feder al Rules o fCi vi l Pro cedure. I n i ts or d er g ra nti ng tha t m oti on, the d istr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that pla i nti ff s f ai l ed to cre ate j ury- tr i abl e i ssu es on thei r cl ai m s o ffedera l em p loym en t d iscrim ination an d state-law retaliatory di sc ha r g e. ( The di st r i ctco ur t g r an te d sum m ar y j udg m en t on the o the r c l a i ms, a nd p l a i nt i ff s do n o ta pp e a l tho se r u lin gs.) I n ad d iti on, the d istri ct cou rt ruled that plaintiff Fo rre st ’s l a w s u i t w as ba rre d by th e d oc tr in e o f cla im precl usi on, al so known as re s judicat a .
I I . Discussi on U nd er Rule 56 of the Feder al Rules of Civil P rocedure, a co ur t “s ha l l g r an t su m m ar y j ud gm en t i fthe mova nt sh o ws tha t th er e i s no g en ui ne d ispu te a s to a ny m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j u d gm en t a s a m att er o fl aw . ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56 ( a)
. A sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on i s a pp ro pri ate l y g ra nted “ag ai nst a party who f a i l s t o ma k e a s h o wi n g s u ffi c i e n t t o e s t ab l i sh t he ex i st e n c e o f a n e l e me n t e s s e n t i a l t o th a t p a r t y ’ s c a s e , a nd10 N o. 10

- 2768

on w h ich th at p ar ty w ill b ea r th e b u rd en of p ro of a t t ria l.” C el otex Corp. v. C atre tt, 47 7 U. S
. 31 7, 32 2 ( 19 86). To su rv ive su m m ar y jud gm en t, a n o n - m o va n t m u st be ab le to sh ow th at a re as on ab le jur y c o u l d ret u rna ve rd ict in i ts f avo r

— m et aphysi caldoubt a s t o the m ate ri alf acts d oe s n otcr ea te a ge n u in e is su e fo r tr ial. Ande rs on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc. , 477U .S . 2 42 , 248 (19 86 ); M atsus hita Ele c. Indu s . Co. , Lt d. v. Zen i t h R a dio C orp. , 47 5 U.S
. 574, 58 6 ( 19 86 )
. O ur r ev i ew i s de no vo : we ac co r d no defer en ce to a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s det er m i na ti o n tha t th e re q u ire m en ts of R u l e 5 6(a ) h av e b ee n m et
. Cli f f or d v
. Cr op P rod. Se rvs . , Inc. , 6 27F
. 3d 26 8, 2 71 n. 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0). The sam e ho l ds tr ue f orthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on ( or ap p aren t d eterm ination) th at som e of p lai nt if f Forrest’s c as e is ba rre d on cla im p re c lu sio n gro u n d s. Remerv. B u rl ing ton Area Sch. D is t. , 205 F.3d 990 , 998 (7th C ir. 20 00 ). N on et h ele ss , w e m ay affirm on an y b as is fa irly p re se n te d in t h e re c or d

. In re A ira dig m C o m m un ica tio ns, Inc. , 616 F.3d 642 , 652 (7th C ir. 2010). A lthough the di str i ct c ourtco rr ectly dete rm i ned that ther e was no genui ne i ssue of m ate ri alf act re l ate d to plainti ff s’ l ega l cl ai m s, the dist ri ct c ourter re d w i th r e s p e c tt o i t s c l a i m p r e c l u s i o n ru l i ng . T h a te r r o r, h o weve r, w as harm l ess , and we ther ef or e affi rm the distri ct cour t’ s j ud gm ent.

A. Ho s t i l e Work E nv i r o nme nt W e wi l l s ta r t wi thpl aint i ff s’ ho st i l e wor ke nviro nm en t cl ai m s. The c l ai m s wer e b roug htunde r Ti tl e VI Io ftheN o. 10

- 2768 11 1964 Ci vi l Ri ghts A ct, 42 U
. S. C. § 2 00 0e ets eq . , and 42 U
. S .C . § 1 981. In see king to estab li sh the ex istenc e of a host i l e workenvi ro nm ent, pl ain tiff s m ust s how that thei r w or k e nvi ro nm ent was bo th ob j ecti vel y a nd subj ective l y o ffensi ve

— tha ti s , “ o ne tha ta r e a s o nab l e p e rs on w ou ld find h os tile or a b u s i v e , a n d on e t h at th e v ict im i n f act did perc eive to be so. ” SeeFaragher v. C ity of Bo ca Raton , 52 4 U.S
. 77 5, 78 7 ( 1998 )
. I n deter m i ni ng wh ether an envi ro nm ent i s s uffi ci entl y ho sti l e t o su p p or t a cl ai m , the Suprem e Cour t has i nstr ucted us t o c asta w i de net and consi der the to tal i ty ofthe c irc um sta nces. T h e ci r c u ms t a n c e s i n c l u d e “ th e fr e q u e n c y o fth e d i s c r i min at or y c on d u c t; its se ve rit y; w h et h er it is p h ys ica lly thre ate ni ng o r hum i l i ati n g, ora m er e o ffensi ve utter ance; and w hetheri t un re as onablyi nter fer es w i th an em plo yee ’ s workper for m ance. ” Fa rag her, 52 4 U.S
. at78 7- 88 (qu ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). To qu alify as a h os tile wor ke nv i r o nm en t, the c o nduc t ati ss ue mustb e se vere or p er va siv e e n ou gh to ca u se p sy c h o l o g ica l inju ry , alth o ug h Ti tl e VI I“ co m es i nt o pl ayb efo r e th e ha r as sing conduct l ead s to a nerv ous b re akdown

. ” Harris v. Forklif t Sys. , Inc. , 51 0 U. S
. 17, 22 ( 19 93 )
. I n addi ti o n to show i ng th atthe e nv i r o nm en t was s uffi ci en tly s er i ou s, the pl aint i ffmu s ts h o w th a tth e h a r a s s me n tw a s ba s e d o n me mb er sh ip in a p ro te c te d cla ss , C erros v. Ste el Techs. , Inc. , 28 8 F. 3d 1040 , 10 45 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) , a n d a lso thatther e i s a bas is for im p ut ing li abili ty to th e p lai nt iff’ s e m p loyer. B url ington Indus. , Inc. v. E ll er th , 524 U
. S. 742, 764-65 (1998 ). Pl ai nti ff s hav e no t cr eat ed a g enui ne d isp u te f or trial

. T he y m aintain th at “[v]erbal an d w ritten d erogatory r efer en ce s to ‘ m o nk ey s, ’ c o nfede r at e fl agg arb, s k i n-12 N o. 10

- 2768

A s w e note d at the outs et, plai n tiff s unh el pfull y tre ated 2 the m s el ves as on e per s on thr ougho utm uc h o fthe i r bri efi ng, ju st a s th ey d id b efo re th e d ist ri ct co u rt . In th e c o n te xt o f a ho stile w or k env iron m en t claim , sec o n d ha nd ha rassm en t is le ss se v er e t h a n firs th a n d h a ra ssm en t. Pet ers v. R enaiss ance H ot elOper at i ng C o. , 30 7 F
. 3d 535, 55 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02 )
. Forthe sak e of ou r ease o nly , w e ha v e g en era lly i n d u lge d p lain tiffs’ fi c t i on thatthe nur s es wer e effec tiv el y a s i ngl e en t i t y, but w e und ers cor e that the brie fing gam bit should be avo ided b y litigan ts. co l o r c o m m en ts , a nd di spar at e di sc i pl i ne a nd t r ea tment ba se d o n race a r e no t th e ch ar ac te r i st i cs o fa c i vi l, no ndi sc r i m i na to ry w o r ke nv i r o nm en t ho spi tabl e to Af r i ca nAm e r i c a ns . ” We a g r e e wi th the n oti o n, b uti ti s n o ts up port ed by re cor d evi dence i n thi s ca se. 2 As t o th e ma t e r i a l s e x c e r p t e d fr o m T HE O NE M INUT E M AN AG ER M EET STHE M ONKEY, w e w i l l ta ke as a g i ven that pla i nti ff s found the m ate ri alsu b j ecti vel y ho sti l e. The i r ca se f o unde r s o n th e o bj ec ti ve co m po ne nt

— that i s, wh at a r eas onabl e per son w oul d fin d offensi ve or ho st i l e. The b o o ki s pl ainl y di r ec te d a t m an ag ement co nc erns, a nd the meta pho r e m pl o y ed bythe b o o k( m o nkey s r epres ent work pla ce pr obl em s) is unl i kel y t o cause c on fu sio n . C o m pa re, e.g., P at ric k W h ite , Th e K ey in “U lysses, ” 9 J AM ES J OYCE Q. 1 0 ( F al l 1 97 1)
. M o r eo ve r, the manage m ent b oo k i s a spi n-o ffo fa cl ass i c ar ti cl e that was fi rs t publ i shed i n the H ar var d Bu si ness Revi ew i n 1974. See W illiam O n c ke n, Jr., an d D on ald L . W as s, M a na gem e ntTim e: Who’s Gott heM onkey? , 99 H ARV . B US . R EV . 178 ( 1999 ) ( re pri nti ng the ar ti cl e a s a “cl ass i c” and noti ng tha tN o. 10

- 2768 13 i t “h as b ee n o ne o fthe pub l i ca ti o n’ s two b es t- se l l i ng r epri nt s ev er ”)
. I n G regory v. Widnall , th e N in th C irc u it c on c lu d ed th at a h os tile w or k e n vir on m en t c laim d id no tr a i s e a j ur y i s s ue wh e r e s up er v i s o r s h a d r e c e i v e d a “si ngl e dra w i ng o fa m onke y o n a m em o . . . acc om panie d by the v e rb a l e xp l a na t i o n tha t i t wa s i nt e nd ed to re m i n d [su p er vis or s] n otto ‘ge t t h e m on ke y offth eir back ’ b y p a s s i ngthe i r r e s po ns ib i l i t i e s t o o the r s . ” 1 53 F.3 d 10 71 , 107 4-7 5 (9 th C ir. 19 98 ) . T h at co n c lu sio n is so u n d . T h e m er e p re se n ce o f T HE O NE M INUT E M AN AG ER M EET STHE M O NK EY at th e jail no t o n ly fa ils to cre ate a host i l e w or k envi ro nm ent under our case la w , e . g. , C oolidge v. Co nsoli dated City of Indianapo li s , 50 5 F. 3d 731, 73 4 ( 7t h C i r. 20 07) ( rul i ng tha t “ bri efand not par ti cul ar l y s ev er e” e xpo su r e to po r no g r aph y de pi ct i ng necr ophil i a di d n ot creat e a hos ti l e workenvi ro nm ent a t a cr i m e l ab) , i t f ai l s t o t e nd to est ablish a hos til e w ork en vi r o nm en t. S i m i l ar l y, the s tr ay com m en ts o ve r the j ai l i nter com do nothel p plainti ffs’ c as e, atl eas t no t o n th e record before us. I t ap p ears on ly that the w ord m onke y was used o vert he i nter com , but pla i nti ff s hav e provi ded no conte xt. The word m i ght ha ve b ee n used to m ock th e j ail ’s ad m inistrators, to refer to allw orkers co l l ec ti ve l y, o r f o r s o m e o th erpurpo se a l to g ethe r . The va gu e re cor d evi dence te l l s us onl y that the word w as u t t e r e d ; n o o th e r i n fe r e n c e i s r e a s o n ab l e . T o b e s u r e , we agr ee w i th the st ate m ent o fo ne o fo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts that “[ t] o s u gge st that a hum an being’ s physi calappeara nce i s es se nt i al l y a ca r i ca tu r e o fa j ung l e be as t
. . . i s deg r ading and hum i l i ati ng i n the extr em e. ” G reen v. Franklin Nat’l B ankof M inneapolis , 459 F.3d 90 3, 91 1 (8 th C ir. 2 00 6). A14 N o. 10

- 2768

P lain tiffs also b ring c laim s b ased o n d iscrete acts of d iscrim i- 3 na tion , an d they rely on t h ese incid en ts in sup p or t of their h o s t i l e wo r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i ms . Ye t, a s we d i s c u s s b e l o w, the rec ord evid ence do es not s up port plai nti ff s’ chara ct eri zat i on, an d s o we o m i tthe di s c rete a cts ofdi s c ri m i nat i on f ro m our d is cuss ion her e. r e a s o nab l e t r i e r o ff a ct, h o we v e r, c o ul d n o tc o nc l ud e that such a sugge sti on was m ade i n thi s ca se. T h a tl e a v e s p l a i n t i ff s w i th t wo i n c i d e n t s o fa n e mplo yee weari ng cl othi ng m ar ked b y the c onfedera te fl ag, as obse rved b y plaintiffElli s, an d a doc tor’s offensi ve sta tem ent t o pla i nt iff Jo nes that a n inm ate nam ed Col e’ s nam e was “bl ack ass c oa l” or“bl ack as co al

. ” Th e Supre m e Cou r t te ac he s th ati so l at ed i n-

3 ci dents, un les s “ extr em el y s er i ous, ” wil l notsupport a h o s t i l e w o r ke n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. Fa rag her, 52 4 U.S
. at 77 8. T h at m ak es se n se , bec au se in o rd er to be ac tio n ab le un de r the pe r t i ne nt s t a t ut e s , i s o l a t e d i nc i de nt s m ust be so seve re thatthey“a m ount t o dis cri m i nator y c hanges in t he t er m s an d c o ndi ti o ns o fe m pl o y m en t .” Id. ( quotatio n m ar ks om itt ed ); see a l so 42 U
. S. C. 2000 e- 2( a) ( 1) ; 42 U
. S. C. § 1 981(b)

. A l though w e d o not appear t o have deci ded the m att erpre vio u sly, we agr ee that displ ays ofco nfe derat e fl ags i n the w or kpl ace m ay supp or t a h os tile w o r k en vir on m en t c laim

. S e eWats on v . CEVA Logisti cs U .S ., Inc. , 619 F.3d 936 , 938-39 & n.2 ( 8th Cir. 20 10 )
. N o ne th el es s, i n si tu at i ng pl aint i ff s’ al l eg at i o ns am ong the c ase - l aw gui deposts, thei r l i m ite d num ber of c laim s a re ins u ffi c i e n t l y s ev er e t o s u p p or t a h os tile w or k e n vir on m en t c laim

. C om pare Whitt a k er v. N
. Ill
.N o. 10

- 2768 15 U ni v. , 42 4 F.3d 64 0, 64 5 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) (“A n o b je c tiv ely host i l e w or k envi ro nm ent w i l l not be f ound where m ost of t h e c on d u c t t h at for m s t h e b as is of a p lain tiff’s cla im con sists of d erogatory statem en ts m ad e by su p ervisors orco - w or ker s o ut o fherhear i ng, and the re st i s is ol ate d an d no t p artic ul ar l y s ev er e. ”) ( quo ta ti o n mar k s an d al te r at i o ns o m i tt ed); D andy v. U nite d P arce l Se rv. , Inc. , 38 8 F. 3d 263, 27 1-72 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( unam bi guousl y r aci al and offensi ve epi thets di d not cr eate a ge nuine i ssue, give n tha t epi th et s wer e us ed o nc e, l o ngi n the pa st ) ; a nd Pet e rs v. Re nai s s anc eHot e l O pe r at i ng Co. , 307 F. 3d 535, 55 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( hand ful o f offensi ve com m ents, m osto f w hi ch w er e byfel l ow em p l oye es ove r a y ear - and-ah alf p er iod , w er e n otsu fficie n t t o ra ise a j u ry iss u e), w ith Lapk a v. C her toff

, 51 7 F
. 3d 974 ( 7th C i r. 20 08) ( “[ A ] ssa ult s w ithin th e w orkp lace create an obj ectively host ile w ork envi ro nm ent foran e m plo yee ev en wh en the y a re i sol a t e d. ” ) ; a nd Loug hm an v. M a lnatiO rg. , Inc. , 39 5 F
. 3d 404, 407

- 0 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( g e nu i ne i s s ue f o r j ur y b a s e d o n i napp ro pri ate co m m ents and “ser i ous physi calvi ol ati ons”)
. Even i nd ulg i ng pl ai nti ff s’ im preci se bri efi ng, w hi ch tr eat s all plainti ff s the sa m e, the i nci dents the y c ite d o n oten tit le th em to a tr ial.

B . O t h e rRa c e - B a s e d C l a i ms Pl ai nti ff s’ o therr ace-base d cl ai m s, al l eging di scr ete acts o fdi scr i m i nati on, f ar e no bett er . They pro ceed under th e i ndi r ec t m etho d o fpr o o fa nno unc ed i n M cD onnell D o u g la s C o rp. v. G reen , 41 1 U.S
. 79 2 ( 1973 )
. The i nd i re ct m etho d i s a sum m ar y j ud gm ent fi l ter in g d evi ce that16 N o. 10

- 2768 al l ows a pl ai nti ffto m ake o ut a pri m a f acie c ase ofdi scri m i nati on. The bur den then shi fts to the defendant to adv an ce a no n- disc r i m i na to r y e xpl an at i o n f o r i ts c o nd u c t, an d sh ifts ba c k t o th e p lain tiff t o a d d u c e e vidence thatthe defe nd ant’ s e xplanat i on i s a l i e. To m ake o ut a pri m a f aci e ca se ofr aci ald isc rim i nati on under the i nd irect m etho d ofpro of, pl ai nti ff s m ust ( amongo th er thi ng s) i den ti fy a n a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac tio n . M c Go wa n v . De e r e& C o. , 5 81 F
. 3d 575, 57 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( bur d en -shi ftinga na l y si s g en er al l y wor k s th e same u nd e r T i t l e V I Ia nd § 1 9 8 1 )
. T o qua l i fy a s a dve rs e m eans m ate ri al l y advers e, “not m er el y an i nconveni ence or a c h ange i n j ob re sponsibi l i ti es. ” G riffin v . P o tter, 35 6 F.3 d 82 4, 82 9 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); see a lso Davis v. Town of Lake P a rk, 2 45 F
. 3d 12 32 , 1 23 8- 39 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 1) ( no ting th atc o ur ts ha ve t al k ed ab o utmate r i al i tyi n di ffer en t w ays but noti ng tha t t o quali fy a s a change to “t er m s, c on d itio n s, or p riv ileg es ” of em p loy m en t w ith in T i t le V II’s m ea n in g re q u ire s a n im p ac t o n p lain tiff’s j ob “in a r ea l a nd de m o ns tr ab l e way ”)
. I n o th er wor ds, the change need s to be si gni fi cant, al though e xactl y what tha tme a ns wi l l v a r y o n the f a c t s o fa g i v e n case . Her rnrei te r v . Ch icago Housing Authority, 31 5 F
. 3d 742, 744 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( disc ussin g three ty pes o fadver se action s tha t hav e sup p orted clai m s). Pl ai nti ff s point to f our acti on s on appealthatthey saywere m ate ri al l y a dvers e: ( 1) t h e 2 005 shi ft- change p oli cy, (2) a th ree-da y su sp en sion received b y p lai nt iff El l i s, (3 ) r es tr i ct i o ns o n “ l unc h b r ea ka ss o ci at i o ns , ” an d ( 4) the i r c o ns truct i ve d ischa r g e. W e ca n j et ti so n pl ain-N o. 10

- 2768 17 ti ff s’ cry pti c l unch pl ai nts w i th basi cal l y n o discuss i on because the al l ega ti ons w er e m ade by, and re l ate to, nu rses w ho d id n ot ap p eal from the d istri ct cou rt’s sum m ar y j ud gm ent r uling. The o thercl ai m ed adver se action s are prop erly before us, but do n ot su p p ort vi abl e cl ai m s. T h e 2 00 5 s h ift-c h an ge p olic y d oe s no t q u alify as m at er ially ad ve rs e o n t h es e fa c ts
. Se eWas hi ngt on v. Il l
. D ep’ tof Rev e nue, 420 F.3d 65 8, 66 2 (7 t hC ir. 20 05 ) (p lain tiff c ou ld m ai ntai n a r eta l i ati on s uitbas ed on s hi ft ch an ges gi ven that the defendant knew the pl ai nti ff’s s on had a m edi calco nd i ti on s o that a 9

- to- 5 s ch ed u le “w as a m at er ially ad ve rs e c h an ge for h er , e ve n th ou gh it w ou ld not hav e been f or 99% of th e staff”). A cha ng e in shift ass i gnm ents w i l l notn or m al l y b e s uffi ci ent t o quali fy a s an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on, unl ess i t i s a ccom panie d b y so m e o th er d et rim en t. E.g
. , Gr u b ev . L au In du s . , Inc. , 25 7 F
. 3d 72 3, 72 8 ( 7th Ci r . 20 01 ) ( no adv er se empl o y m en t acti on w h er e chang e in shi ft was notacc om panie d by a r educti on i n pay o r si gni fi cantl y di m i ni shed j ob re

sponsibi l i ti es)
. W i th r espectto pl ai nti ff s El l i s, Fo rr est, a nd J o ne s , the y do n o tp o i ntt o a ny“ o bj e c t i v e h a r dsh ip ” th at i nd i cate s that the change m i ght qual i fy a s m at er ially ad ve rs e. He r r nreiter, 3 15 F
. 3d at744
. And on ly o n a p p ea l ha ve p lain tiffs co n te n d ed th at fam ily consi derat i ons m ade the shi ft- change m ate ri al l y a dvers e f orpl ai nti ffEl l i s. They ne verm ade thatarg um ent t o the di s t r i c tcour t, a nd s o the i s s ue h a s b e e n wa i v e d. Tully v . Bar ada , 599 F.3d 591 , 594 (7th C ir. 2010). Lik ew i se, El l i s ca nnot pre vai l o n hercl ai m o fdi scr i m i nati o n b as ed o n h erthr ee - days us pen si o n, a n inc i den t sh e18 N o. 10

- 2768 al so po i nt s to i n her s ta te
- l aw r et al i at i o n c l ai m . El l i s an d Forrest w ere both pu nish ed f or i nv estigating a t h ird n u rs e’s m ed ica ti on err or s. T h e n u rs e in qu es tio n felt h ar as se d , an d th e p ar tie s d isp u t e w h et h er E llis w as to ld th at high e r -u p s, not Elli s, w ou ld ad d ress th e m atter. T he re i s no q ue stion t h a t th e sus p en sion cou ld q ua li fy as an ad verse em p lo y m en t action. H ow ever, plaintiffs f ai l to sho w thatCC A ’ s e xplanat i on i s pre text. U nd er th e i n d i r e c tme th o d o fp r o v i n ga di s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m, a p l a i n t i fffi r s te s t ab l i s h e s a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o fd i s c r i mi na ti o n ( ana dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n i s o ne o fthe el ement s, a nd we wi l l a ss um e th e o th er s)
. Af te r the pla i nt i ffma k e s o uta p r i ma f a c i e c a s e , the b ur de n shi f ts to the e m pl o y ert o a r ti cul ate a no n- di sc r i m i na to r y e xpl an at i o n f o r i ts c ond uc t. I fthe e m pl o y erdo es s o , the bur dens hi fts b ac kt o the pl aint i fft o s ho w tha t th e ex p lan at ion is p re te x tu al. G er m ano v. Int’lProfitAss’ n, Inc. , 544 F.3d 798, 807 (7th C ir. 2008). H ere, th e d istri ct cou rt r e v i e wed the r e c o r d e v i de nc e a nd c o nc l ud e d tha t“ CCA ha s es tabl i sh ed th ati ts pr ac tice was t o di sc i pl i ne C a u c a s i a n e mp l o y e e s a s w e l l a s A f r i c a n A me r i c a n e mp loyees forsim il ar activiti es . . . . P la in tiffs are l eft m erel y t o specul ate as to the re aso ns the y were di sci plin ed , s tat i ng tha t they ‘ bel i eve ’ thei r disc i pline was prete xtual witho ut ev erpro vi ding a f actualfound ati on f orthatbel i ef

. ” Ap p. 30
. W e a gr ee. Fi nal l y, pl ai nti ff s’ co ns tr u cti ve disc harg e cl ai m cannot su cce ed

. Es tablishing con stru ctive d ischa rge i s m ore diffi cult than est abl i shi ng a host i l e workenvi ro nm ent. Thom pson v . M em ’l H osp. of Carbondale, 62 5 F
. 3d 394, 40 1- 02 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. The f ai l ur e o fthe lat te r thus do o m s th e for m er . Id.N o. 10

- 2768 19 C. S t a t e L a w W hi s t l e bl o we rAc t i o ns Pl ai nti ff s m ai ntai n that they w er e inti m i dated, r etal i ate d against, and had thei r em plo ym ent c onst ructi vel y t er m i nated fo r foll owing thei r profess i onal nursi ng ethi calo bl i gat i ons by com pla i ni ng about s afety pract i ces at the j ai l

. A ccor ding to them , CC A ’ s co nd uct vi ol ate d I C 22- 5- 3- 3 ( the “ A ct”) , a statutor y whist l ebl ower pro vi si on. CC A co ntends thatp lai nti ff s’ wh i stl ebl o werc l ai m s ca nno t m o ve f o r war d b ec au se pl ainti ff s f ai l to poi nt o ut a vi ol ati on of la w , w hi ch i s apre requ isi te to a c l ai m unde r the s ta tu te , a nd b ec au se pl ainti ff s f ai l ed to subm i t wri tte n com pla in ts to an a pp ro pr i at e st at e ag en cyo r o ffi ci al

. W e ev al ua te the a r g um ents on a near l y c l ean s l ate ; I nd i ana Court s hav e had l i m i te d occasi on t o i nter pret the Act. Cout e ev. Lafayett e N eighborhoo d Housing Se rvs . , Inc. , 79 2 N
. E.2 d 90 7, 91 2 (In d . C t. A p p . 200 3). W h ile c on c er n s o ve r fed er alism l ead us to tread l ightly w he n inte rp reting m atters o fs ta te l aw, the t as kb efor e us i s r el at i ve l y s i m pl e an d I nd i ana co urts l oo k t o basi c to ols of sta tutor y inter preta
tio n, s e e, e . g. , E s t a te of M o relan d v . D ieter, 57 6 F
. 3d 691, 695 (7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( “In Indi an a, the l o des ta r o fs ta tu
to ry int er p re ta tio n is leg isla tiv e in te n t, an d th e p lain l an g ua g e o fthe s ta tu te i s th e be st ev i den ce o ftha t i nte nt
. ”) ( quo ta ti o n mar k s an d a l te r at i o ns o m i tted)

. Our ta ski s to “ deduc e, a s cl o se l y a s po ss ibl e, ho w the I ndi an a Suprem e Cour t would r ule

. ” H i ncv. L im e - O

- Sol Co. , 38 2 F. 3d 716, 72 0 (7t h Cir

. 20 04)
. W e a gr ee w i th CCA that pla i nti ff s do not poi nt to a vi ol ati on o fl aw o n w hi ch to hang thei r w hi stl ebl ower cl ai m s. Because that resol ves20 N o. 10

- 2768

P r o s c r ib e d f o r m s o fr e t a l i a t i o n i n c l u d e t e r m i n a t i o n o fe m- 4 ploym ent. IC 22- 5- 3- 3( b). W e as sum e without deci di n g that I nd i a na Co urts w ou l d a l l ow fora whi s t l e bl owe r a c t i ont o be m ai nt ai ne d u nd erthe c ode bas ed o n a c ons t ru c t i ve di s c har ge th eo ry . S e e Ton y v. E lkh ar t C ou n ty, 8 5 1 N. E. 2 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 4 0 ( I nd

. Ct
. App
. 2 0 0 6 ) ( di s c us s i ng the r e q ui r e m e nt s f or a c on s t r uc t i ve re ta lia to ry d isc h a rg e c la im u n d er th e c o m m o n la w ). the m att er, we decl i ne to reach the parti es’ ar gum ents re gar ding the Act’ s wri ti ng r equi re m ent. As e v e r wi th ma t t e r s o fs t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n, we s t a r t wi th th e A c t ’ s l a n g u a g e . T h e A c tp r o t e c t s e mp loy ees fro m cer tai n f or m s o fr eta l i ati on, wh er e th eir em plo yer s a re under publ i c co ntra ct. I n pert i nent par t, 4 th e p ro vis ion atiss u e p ro vid es : ( a) A n em p loyee ofa pri vate em plo yerthati s under p ub li c con tract m ay rep ort in w riting th e existen ce of: (1) a vio lat ion of a fe d er al la w or re gu lat ion ; (2) a vio lat ion of a s ta te law or ru le; ( 3) a vi ol at i on o fan o rdi nance o fa pol i ti calsubd ivi sion (as de fi ne d i n IC 36-1-2-13); or (4) t h e m isu se of p u b lic re so u rc es ; concerni ng the exec uti on o fpubli c co ntra ct fi rst t o the pr i vate em plo yer, unl ess the pri vat e em plo yer i s th e p e r s o n w h o m th e e mp l o y e e b e l i e v e s i s c o mm itt in g th e v iola tio n or m isu se of p u b lic re so u rc es . In that case , the em plo yee m ay re portthe vi ol ati on or m i s us e o fp ub l i c r e s o ur c e s i n wr i t i ngt o e i ther the pr i vate em plo yero r to any o ffi ci alo r age ncyN o. 10

- 2768 21

e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e a r e p o r tfr o m t he st a t e e th i c s c o mm issi on u nd er I C 4-2-6-4(b )( 2 )( G ) o r IC 4 -2 -6 -4 (b )( 2 )( H ). I fa g o o d f ai the ff ort is no t m ade t o c o r r ec t th e probl em withi n a r eas on able ti m e, the em plo yee m ays ubmi t a w rit te n r epo r t o fthe i nc i den t to a ny per so n, a g en cy, o r o r g an i za ti o n. I C 22- 5- 3- 3( a)
. The pro tect i ons ofthe A ct do not att ach unle ss and untilthe em plo yee fi l es a “w ri tte n re porto f the [ com plain ed of ] i nci dent to any perso n, ag ency, o r organ ization.” I C 22-5-3-3(b). Inth is c as e, p lain tif fs filed int er n al re p or ts p r i m a r ily about safety pract i ces at CC A
. H owever, pl ai nti ff s hav e not tol d us w hat s tat e o r fed er al laws w er e v i ol ate d by th e con d uc t the y obs e r v e d . Th e A ct by its term s covers vi ol ati ons offedera l l aw s o r re gul atio ns, st ate l aw s o r ru les , a n d ord in an c es , as w ell as th e m isu se of p u b lic re sour ces. I C 2 2-5-3- 3( a) ( 1)

- ( 4)
. A wh i stl ebl ower has to c om p lain ab ou t s u c h a v i o l a t i on or m isu se of p u b lic r e s o ur ces b e f o r e the Ac t ’ s p r o t e c t i o ns a r e t r i g g e r e d. H er e, pl ai nti ff s point o ut no vi ol ati on o fa sta te l aw o r r ul e , o r a ny thi ng el s e wi thin the Ac t ’ s a mbi t
. I ns t e a d, th ey rely o n thei ro bl i gat i ons as pract i calnurse s, under 848 I nd . Ad m i n. Code 2- 3- 2( 10) ( sta nd ar ds f orprac tic al n u r s e s ) , t o re p or t t o th eir bo ss es or s ta te offic ials unpr o fes si o na l c o nduc t th atmay j eo par di ze pa ti en t safety
. I ro ni cally, byfi l i ng a re port, pl ai nti ff s e nsured that ther e was no violati on o fst ate l aw , and theyhave not ar gued that the s ubj ect m att ero fthei r com p lain ts fell w ithin th e coverag e of th e A ct. Th erefore, sum m ary j ud gm ent o n the plai nti ff s’ wh i stl ebl ower cl ai m s was appropri ate
.22 N o. 10

- 2768 D . Cl ai m Pre cl usio n W e do agr ee w i th pla i nti ff s that the dist ri ct cour t e rred wi thr es p ect to i ts c l ai m pr ec l us i o n r ul i ng . Al th o ug h the parti es have not done m uch to clar i fy m att er s, so m e o f pla i nti ff For re st’ s al l ega ti ons w er e m ade i n an ea rl i er (un su cce ssful) fede r al law su it. Th e d istri ct cou rt appeared t o rul e that a l l o fFo rr est ’ s s eco nd l aw sui t was bar re d un d er t he doctr i ne o fcl ai m pre cl usi on, al so known as re s judicat a . The d ist ric t co urt, r el yi ng o n dict a f r o m Z uric h C a pit a l M a rkets Inc. v . C ogli a nese, 3 8 3 F
. S up p. 2d 1041 , 10 47 n. 2 (N .D . I l l

. 20 05) , r eas oned thatFo rr est coul d have a m ende d h er com pla i nt i n the ear l i ersui t t o al l eg e co nduc t th ato cc ur r ed be twe enthe t i m e when sh e fi led su it a n d t he tim e w he n C C A m oved f or sum m ary j ud gm ent. T h at concl usi on di d not a ccurat el y r efl ect o u r c a s e l a w. The precl usi ve effect ofa federal c ou rt deci si on i s a m at te r of fe d er al c om m on law

. Ta y lo r v. Sturge ll, 553 U
. S. 88 0, 8 91 ( 20 08 )
. The fede r alr ul e i s tha t c la i m pr ec l usi on g ener al l y doe s no t ba r a s ubsequent l aw sui t for i s s u e s th a t a r i s e a ft e r th e o p e r a t i v e c o mp l a i n t i s f i l e d. SeeD oe v. Allied -Signal, Inc. , 985 F.2d 908 , 914-15 (7th C ir. 1993 ) ( “[ P]l ai nti ff s nee d not a m end fi l i ngs t o i ncl ud ed issues th at arose after th e o rigina l su it i s lodged

. ”); Sp iegel v. Cont ’ l Il l
. Nat ’ l Bank, 790 F.2d 63 8, 64 6 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ); see al s o 18 W rig h t, M i ller, & C oo p er , F EDERAL P RACT I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 4 409, at21 3 (2 d e d. 2002 ) ( “M ostcas es r ul e th ata n a ct i o n n ee d i nc l ude o nl y the po r ti o ns of the cl ai m due at the t i m e o fco m m enci ng that a c tio n, fre quentl y obser vi ng tha t the o p p ortuni ty to fi l e a supple-N o. 10

- 2768 23

m en ta l co m p lain t is n otan ob lig a t i o n .”); id. at 213- 16 ( n o t i n gth a ta n u n s u c c e s s fu l a t t e m p tt o a m e n d a c o mpla i nt r equi re s “careful anal ysi s t o deter m i ne wh ether th e a tt em p t w as reje c te d on gro u n d s t h at sh ou ld pr ec l ude a later at te m pt to r es ur r ec t th e m at te r s ex clud ed from the fir st action ”). T hat doe s no t e nd m att er s, however

. Pl ai nti ff s do not ar g ue tha t F o r r es t’ s cl ai m s d iffero n the mer i ts fr o m the re st ofthe pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s e rr oro n c l a i m p re c lu sio n w as h ar m les s. See F e d. R
. Ci v . P
. 61
. I n additi on, we note that, o n the f acts and ar gum ents prese nted, th e d i str i ct c ourtdi d an adm i rabl e j ob of add re ssing the m any i ssues i n the case .

I I I . Concl usio n F o r the r ea so ns s etf o r thabo ve, the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

6- 9- 11