T o d a y , w e a lso d ec id e t h e c a se o f E g on m w an v. C oo k C ou n ty 1 She r i f f ’s Depa r t me nt, N o . 0 9

- 2 7 6 4 , wh i c h a r i s e s fr o m th e s a me (co n tin u ed ...) 

## 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. 09

- 2709 K ENNETHS WEARNI GEN -E L, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C OO KC OUN TYS HERI FF ’ SD EP ART MEN T, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 1:05- cv-01493

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 15, 2010

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 22, 2010

Befo re W OO D , E VANS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, C ircu i t Ju dg e. Kenneth S w earni gen- El w as c ha r g e d w i th c u s t o d i a ls e x u a lmi s c o n d u c tw h i l e e mp loy ed as a c o r r ec ti o na lo ffi ce ri n the Co o kCo unty j ai l ’s w om en’ s divi si on a nd subse quentl y r esi gned. A fter 12 N o. 09

- 2709

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 i n v e st i g a t i o n o f c u st o d i a l se x u a l m i sc o n d u c tin th e w o m e n ’s d iv ision
. L ike Sw ear nig en , E g on m w an w as ch arg ed b u t acq u itted aftera bench t ri al, by the s am e s tat e c ourt j ud ge. H e then b ro u g ht a law suit, b y the sam e cou nsel, ag ain st the d efend an ts, a lle g in g g en d er an d ra ce d isc ri m in a tio n ( a m o n g o th er th in g s), w h ic h w a s d ism iss ed o n su m m a r y ju d g m en t. SeeEgonm w an v . C o o kC o u n ty S h er iff’s D ep ’t, N o. 06 C 4764, 20 0 9 W L 1139150 (N .D . Ill. A p r. 2 7, 20 0 9 ). bei ng ac quit ted o fthe charg e in sta te c ou rt, S w earni gen brou gh t this law su it against the Coo k C ou nt y Sheriff’s Dep ar tm ent, wh i ch oper ate s the CookC ounty Dep ar tm en to fCo r r e c t i o ns ( CCD OC) a nd S he r i ff’ s P o l i ce ( CC SP) ; the County ofCook; the sh er i ff, M i chael Shea han; tw o CC DO C di re cto rs , Call i e Bair d an d Scott K u rt ov ich ; an d th e s u p er in te n d en t o f th e w o m en ’s d ivisi o n, Kat i e H ar r i so n. S wea r ni g ena l l eg es tha t th e defen d an ts co n st r u c tiv ely d isc h ar ge d h im be c au se of h is ge n d er , rac e, an d p r o t e c t e d sp ee c h an d init iat ed a m alici ous pros ecuti on that caused hi m extr em e e m oti onal dist re ss. The defendants, o n the othe r hand , co ntend that th eyt o o kno a dve r se a ct i o n a g ains t S wea r ni gen , a nd eve n i ftheydi d, i t was be cause ofhi s s exualm isc onduct. The di st r i ctj udg e si ded wi ththe de fen dan ts , di sm i ss i ng o n e c l a i m, s eeSwearingen- E l v. Co okC ounty Sheri ff ’s D ep’t, 41 6 F
. S upp. 2 d 6 12 , 6 16

- 17( N
. D. I l l

. 2 00 6) , a nd g r an ting su m m ar y jud gm en t o n th e re s t
. Se eSwe ar nige n- El v
. C ookCo unty Sher if

f’s D ep’t, N o . 0 5 C 1 4 9 3 , 2 0 0 9 WL 1849 809 ( N
. D. I l l

. J une 26, 2009 )
. Swearni gen now appeal s.N o. 09

- 2709 3

The defen dant s cr i t i c i ze the s t at em en toff ac t s s ec t i on of 2 Sw earni gen’ s app el lat e brief as argum entat ive. A s S w earni gen con ced es, his statem en t m ay no t ha v e b een “th e m o st artfully stated ,” bu t w e d ecline the d efend an ts’ requ est to im p ose san ction s. Swea rn i gen ref er s t o h i s r ac e as “Bl ac k” s o we wi l l do the 3 sam e. Eg on m w an , in t h e com p an ion case, refers to him self as “A f ri can- A m eri can” s o in hi s cas e we w il l do the s am e. A t t h is s ta ge in t h e p r oc ee d in gs w e m u st co n st ru e a ll f a c t s a n d r e a s o n ab l e i n fe r e n c e s i n f a v o ro fS we a r n i g e n . As 2 so vie w ed , th e f a c t s a re th at C C D O C G en er al O rd er 3.8 f orbi ds em plo yee s fro m enga gi n g i n ( 1) “a cti vi ti es unbecom i ng o fco unty e m p loy ees, o r conduct thatr efl ects unfav or abl y t o the Offi ce o fthe Sher i ffo fCookCounty” and (2 ) “s exualco nd uct o r sexualr el ati onshi ps, physi cal i n na tu r e, wi th a per so n i n th e cus to dy an d ca r e o fthe CC DO C.” I t a l so d ire cts em plo yee s t o re portco de vi ol ati ons as f ol l ows: I t s hal lbe the r esponsibi l i ty ofev er y em plo yee to i m m edi at ely r epo r t to the i rdi vi si o na lS upe r i nt en dent/Un i t Head and the departm ent Int er nalInvesti gat i ons U ni t v erbal l y a nd i n w rit ing, any f act or si tuati on wh i ch m ay gi ve ri se to orbe const rued as corru p t, il legal or un eth ical b eh avior and /or a po ss ibl e co nfl i cto fi nt er es t. Thi s sh al li nc l ude , b ut not be l i m i ted to , r epor ti ng any thi ng wh i ch co u ld i m pai r the e m plo yee ’ s per f or m ance o fthei r du ti es in a f air an d i m p artial m an ne r. Swearni gen, a bl ack m al e, beg an working as a cor re c- 3 ti o na lo ffi ce ra t th e j ai li n 1 98 6. H e h eld va r i o us po si ti o ns4 N o. 09

- 2709

Sw ear nig en no w arg u es, w itho u t citing to the reco rd , tha t this 4 c onve rs at i on t ook pl ac e “[ s ] om et i m e aft erM ay 20 03 but before July 3, 20 03
. ” Th e defen dant s , onthe othe r han d, poi nt to three places i n the re cord w here Sw earni gen adm it ted that th e co nversat ion t ook p lac e i n J anuary 2003. Itthe ref ore w ould b e unreas onab le to acce pt Sw earni gen’ s content ion as t o whe n the c on ve r s a t i ono c c ur r e d. w ith th e labor un ion tha t repre sen ted c orrectiona l officers fro m 19 90 to 2001
. S w earni gen a l so att em pted to br ing a n ew u n ion int o t h e C C D O C in F eb ru ar y 2 00 2. D u rin g h is ti m e i n th e wom en ’ s di vi si o n, S wea r ni g env o i ce d c o nc erns ab ou t j ail p olic ies an d h elp ed ot h er offic er s w i t h t h eir co m pl aint s ag ains t m an ag ement

— acti vi ti es ofwh i ch H ar ri son w as aw ar e. A ccor ding to Swearnig en , H ar ri son and he bum ped heads i n J an uary20 03, wh en H ar ri son tol d him thather 4 “fi rs t g oalas S up er i ntendent w as to r em ove al lthe m en out ofthe [ w om en’ s] di vi si on” and ther ef or e S w earn igen “m us tg o . ” Du r i ngthi s s a me c o nv e r s a t i o n, Ha r r i son al so cri ti ci zed S w earni gen’ s e ff or ts to hel p anothero ffi cer f i l e a ha r a s s men t c o mpl a i nt a g a i ns t he r . S we a r ni g e n re sponded thathe woul d “fi ght” H ar ri son on herat
tem pt to r em ove m en fro m the divi si on be cause it “w as d isc rim in at or y a n d r e ta liat or y.” H e a lso rep or te d h is concerns to o thersuperv i sor s. I n M ar ch orA pri l20 03, N i col e Burns, a fem al e deta i nee, gave H ar ri son a l ett eral l eging tha t m al e co rr ecti onal offi cer s were engag i ng i n sexuali nter cour se w i th her and otherdetainees i n the w om en’s d ivisi on. The l ett erN o. 09

- 2709 5 di d no t spe ci fi ca l l y na m e S we arn ig en . Har r i so n s en t th e letter to K urt ovich and the C C D O C ’s Int erna l A ffa irs Depa r tment( I A D ) , whi chthe n fo r war ded th e al l eg at i o ns t o the CC S P. T he r e i s s o me e v i de nc e tha tHa r r i s o n mad e a pho n e c a l lt o th e I AD th a tb r o u g h tS we a r n i g e n ’ s n a me in to th e in ve s tig at ion, alth ou gh H ar ris on d isp u te s t h is co nt en tion. D etec tives from the C C SP con d uc ted i nt ervi ew s o ffem al e deta i nees, includingLatoy a W i l l i am s, who l at erc l ai m ed th atde te ct i ve s th r ea te ne d he ra nd offe re d h er br ibe s t o im p lica te Sw ea rn ig e n . A p p ro x im ately 20 m al e o ffi ce r s, abo utha l fo fthe m b l ac k, were “s us pec ts o fi nt er es t” i n the s wee pi ng inves ti g at i o n. The detect i ves re port ed thei r fi nd i ngs to the Cook County St ate ’ s Attor ney. I n J une 2 00 3, tw o ass i sta nt st ate ’ s a tto rney s ( A SAs) bega n i nter vi ew i ng detainees. Th ey di d not inter vi ew W i l l i am s o r the de fen dants. H ar ri son att ended som e o f the det ai nees’ i nter vi ew s a nd p urpor tedl y quest i oned the m, b utthe de fe nd a nt s o the r wi s e we r e n o ti nv o l v e d. Du ring the i nvest i gat i on, detainees sai d that S w earni gen w as h av in g in ap p ro p r i at e re lat ion s w ith d et ain ee P or tia Wa r r i n g t o n . Wa r r i n g t o n wa s i n t e r v i e we d b y th e AS As and a dmi t t e d tha ts he h a d s e x wi th S we a r ni g e n. T e l epho ne r ec o r ds al so s ho wed tha t be twe enM ar ch1 a nd M ay 31 , 200 3, W ar rin gt on m ad e a b ou t 1 00 co l l e c t c alls fro m the j ai lto S w earni gen’ s per sonalcel lphone and that he acc epted about 25 o ftho se cal l s. S w earni gen no w conte nd s that he gave W ar ringto n hi s phon e num ber because she said t hat s upervi sor s were thre ate ni ng her an d “m es sin g w ith [h er ] ca se .”6 N o. 09

- 2709 On Jul y 3 , 20 03, the I A D d e-deputiz ed Swearni gen for “co nd uct unbeco m i ng” a nd tr ansfer re d him to an externalo perat i ons post. A m on th l ate r, S w earni gen b eg an a sc h ed u led va c at ion ou ts id e t h e c ou n tr y. W h ile h e w as aw ay, on A ugust 13, 2003 , a w ar ra nt f or h is ar re st w as issued and he w as charg ed w i th cust odi al se x u a l m iscond uc t. T w o of th e othe r 20 or so officers w ho were t h e subj ects o fthe i nvest i gat i on, J am es A nthony a nd I yar e Ego nm w an, were al so charg ed. Li ke Swearni gen, A nthony a nd Egonm w an ar e bl ack. The ASAs te st i fi ed th atthe y di d no t con su lt w i ththe defe nd ants on thei r charg i ng d ec isi ons and that the thr ee offi cer s w er e t agg ed due to consi ste nt witnes ses ’ st ate
m ents and cor robor ati ve ev id ence. S heahan hel d a pre ss c on fer en c e a fte r th e c h ar ge s w er e is su ed , s ta tin g, “T h is i s so m ethi ngwher e i nd iv i dual s m ade b ad ch o i ce s an d p u t t h em se lve s in a p os itio n w h er e t h ey ab u se d th eir pow erand they ’ l lpay th e consequences . ” S w earni gen a lso cla im s t h at an ot h er p er so n h ea rd Sh ea h an ca ll h im a “fu git ive .” On A ugust 2 6, 20 03, S w earni gen was s uspend ed w i th pay pend i ng a hear i ng pu rsu an t t o Cle ve l and Boardof Edu c at i on v . L ou de r mill , 4 70 U. S
. 5 32 ( 19 85 ) , a s o nl y the m er it boa rd c ou ld te rm in at e h is e m p loy m en t. See5 5 I LCS 5/3- 7012
. One w hi te offi cer, PaulU sya k, was al so dedepu ti zed and suspended with paypending a Loud er m il l hear i ng f orl i vi ng with a for m eri nm ate
. ( U sya k was not, h ow eve r, cr i m i nal l y c harg ed. ) U pon re turni ng fro m v a c a t i o n, S we a r n i g en sur r e n d e r e d t o th e C C S P
. He l ate r tes ti fi ed that som eo ne to l d him thatKu rt ovi chN o. 09

- 2709 7

T h e tr i a l ju d g e f o u n d n o c o r r o b o r a t i o n fo r W a r r i n g t o n ’s 5 t e s t i m on y, whi c h he di s c ou nt e d b e c a us e , whi l e o n the s t a nd , W arri ngton tol d t h e prose cutor that s he did not li ke her, (co n tin u ed ...) w anted hi m to be pla ced in a m ax i m um se curi ty ar ea, w hi ch cause d him gr eatdi str ess . S w earni gen a ctu ally w as pla ced i n a o ne- perso n, unl ock ed cel li n a psy chologi cal evaluat io n a rea. H e bon d ed out a few hou rs l ate r. A s a r esul t o fthes e inci dents, he no w su ffer s fro m p osttrau m atic stress d isorder. O n A u gu st 28 , 200 3, Sw ea rn ige n res ign ed , no tin g in h is p ap er w o r k t h at h e w as lea vin g t o a tt en d sc h oo l. H e l at ert es ti fi ed th athe r ea l l y r es i g ne d b eca us e o fthe ad m in ist ra tiv e p ro c ee d in gs bu t d id n otw an t t o e x p l ain that to a future em plo yer . The wom en’ s d ivisi on was subsequentl y c on ve rted i nto a uni t m oni tor ed al m ost exclu sivel y b y fem al e o ffi cer s. The fem al e- onl y pol i cy was dee m ed a bo na fi de o cc upa ti o na lqua l i fi ca ti o n. M ale offic er s in th at d ivis ion w e r e t ra n sfe rre d , no t t er m ina t e d. A t S w earni gen’ s s tat e co urt b en c h tr i al, i n J une 200 4, nei therthe defe nd ants norS w earni gen t est i fi ed. W ar rington, however, d i d test i fy a nd r epeate d her ear l i erst ate
m ents that, wh i l e s he was a det ai nee, s he had se x wi th S w ea r ni g e n. T he AS As a g r e e d t o r e c o mm e nd a re du cti on in W ar ringto n’s s en tence i n exchange f orher t e s t i mon y . Th e pa r t i e s s t i pu l a t e d tha t W a r r i ng ton mad e 10 0 ca l l s fr o m th e j ai lt o S wea r ni g en ’ s pho ne a nd that he a c c ep ted 25 o fthem

. Despi te thi s e vi dence, S we a r ni g e n wa s a c qu i t t e d. 58 N o. 09

- 2709

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 whic h, ac cor d ing t o the j udge, “s how[ ed] ut t erc ont em ptan d d isre s pec tf or m em ber s ofl aw en f or c em en t
. ” Th e j udge als o sug g es t ed that, by “ wil l i ngl y” havi ng s ex with S wear ni ge n, W a r r i n g t o n w a s “ a id in g an d ab et tin g in th e c o m m iss io n o f a fel o n y .” That re m ark i s rather c urious when one consi ders thatthe cus todial s exual m isc ond uct s tatute c le arl y st ates that a n in m a te is in ca p a b le o f co n se n t. S ee72 0 IL C S 5/1 1 -9 .2(e ). A fterthe tr i al, S w earni gen fi l ed an E E O C char ge, al l egin g t h at h e h ad be en “d isc rim in at ed ag ain st on th e b as is of m y ra c e, B lac k, an d se x , m a l e, invio lat ion of T itle V II ofthe Civi lRi ghts A ct o f19 64 , a s am ended.” The char ge di d no t m en ti o n r et al i at i o n. Acco r di ngt o S wea r ni g en, h ow ev er , th e E E O C inv es tig at or refu se d to allow h im to ad d t h i s cl ai m . S w earni gen r ecei ved a “r i ght t o su e” l et ter an d the r ea fte rfi l ed a si x- co untc o m pl aint al leging ( 1) ge nd erand ra ce di scr i m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati on under Ti tl e VII of the Ci vi lRi ghts A ct o f19 64; ( 2) gender and r ace disc ri m i nati on under 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 983; ( 3) r ace disc ri m i nati on under 4 2 U.S .C
. § 1981 ; ( 4) Fi rs t A m en d m en t re ta liat ion u n d er 42 U .S.C
. § 1 98 3; (5) m alici ous pr osecuti on under I l l i noi s l aw ; and ( 6) i ntenti onal i n fl i c t i o n o fe mo t i o n a ld i s t r e s s u n d e rI l l i n o i s l a w. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d Sw earni gen’s Tit l e VI Ir etal i ati on cl ai m and l ate r gr an ted the defendants’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the re m ai ni ng cl ai m s. W e r evi ew the gr ant o f sum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo . Nagle v. Vill. of C a l um et P a rk, 554 F.3d 110 6, 1114 ( 7th Cir. 2009). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p ro p ria te w h er e t h e a d m iss ible evi dence shows that“there i s n o genu i ne i ssue as toN o. 09

- 2709 9 any mat e r i a l f a c t a nd tha t the mov a nt i s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gm en t a s a mat t e r o f l a w. ” F e d. R. Ci v . P. 5 6 ( c) ( 2)
. “A g enui ne i ss ue of m at er i alf ac t ar i se s o nl y i fs uffi ci en t ev id en c e fa vo rin g t h e n on m ov in g p a rt y e x ist s t o p er m it a j ury to re turn a ve rdi ct forthatparty. ” Faas v. Sea rs, Roeb uc k & C o. , 53 2 F
. 3d 633, 64 0- 41 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( i nter nal qu otation m arks om itted ). The fi rs t i ssue i s whet h ersum m ar y j ud gm ent was a p p r o p r i a t e o n S we a r n i g e n ’ s g e n d e ra n d r a c e d i s c r i mi nati on cl ai m s. The di str i ct j ud ge f ound that S w earni gen ha d no t sh o wn ana dve r se e m ploy m en t ac ti o n ( he ar gue d o nl y c o ns tr uct i ve di sc ha r g e) , a r equi r ed el ement of th os e c laim s. SeeLu ce r o v. Ne t t l eCr e e k S ch
. Corp. , 56 6 F.3 d 72 0, 7 3 0 ( 7 th C ir. 20 09 ); P helan v. Co ok C ounty, 46 3 F.3 d 77 3, 78 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); O ’Neal v. C ity of Chi. , 39 2 F
. 3d 90 9, 91 1 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ); se e also Fisc herv. Ava nade, Inc. , 51 9 F. 3d 39 3, 40 8- 09 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “Constr ucti ve disc harg e d oes con stitut e an ad verse em p loym en t action .
. . . ”). W e a gr ee. The Suprem e Cour t has hel d that, to es tabl i sh co nstr ucti ve di sc ha r g e, a p lai nti ffmusts ho w tha t he rwor k i ng condi ti ons, fro m an obj ecti ve sta nd p oint, “be cam e s o i nt o l er abl e th athe rr es i g na ti o n qua l i fi ed as a fi tt i ng re sponse. ” Pa. St at ePol i cev. Su de rs , 54 2 U.S
. 12 9, 133- 34, 14 1 ( 2004 )
. W e hav e found constr ucti ve disc harg e wh e r e “ a n e mp l o y e r a c t s i n a ma n n e rs o a s t o h a v e c o mm unica ted to a re aso nabl e em p loy ee that she wil lbe te rm i nated, and the pla i nti ff em plo yee re si gns . . . .” E .E .O .C . v. U niv . of C hi. Ho sps. , 276 F.3d 3 2 6 , 3 3 2 (7th C ir. 2002 )
. But w e hav e s ubseq uentl y c l ar i fi ed that “the pros -10 N o. 09

- 2709 pect o fbeing fi re d at the co ncl usi on o fan ex tended proc e ss ,” w ith ou t m or e, d oe s n otm ee t t h is s ta n d ar d

. Ciga n v. C hippewa Falls Sch. D is t. , 38 8 F
. 3d 331, 33 3- 34 ( 7th C ir. 2004). I n additi on t o Ciga n , the de fen dan ts r ely o n L e ve n st ei n v. Sa l af s ky, 4 14 F
. 3d 76 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2005) , i n a r g ui ng tha tS we a r ni genwa s n o tc o ns t r uc t i v e l y di s c ha r g e d. T he r e, the pl aint i ff, a pr o fes so ro n the f ac ul tyo fthe me d i c a ls c h o o la tth e U n i v e r s i t y o fI l l i n o i s i n R o c k f o r d, was s u s p e n d e d wi th p a y p e n d i n ga s e x u a lh a r a s s men t i nvest i gat i on, te m pora ri l y a ss i gned offcam pu s for al m osta yea r, r em ove d as depart m ent he ad, an d gi ven “de m ea ni ng ” tas k s be f o r e fi na l l y r es i g ni ng . W e di st i ng ui s he d Parre t tv. Ci ty of Conne rs vi l l e, Indi ana , 73 7 F
. 2d 690 ( 7th Ci r. 19 84) , bec ause ther e the pl ain tiff w as f or ced to sitin a w in d ow les s b ro om clo se t a n d sp en d h is en ti r e sh i ft wi thno th i ngto do , a nd the r ea ss i g nm en t w as n otex p licit ly te m p or ar y. Levens te in , 41 4 F .3d a t 7 74- 75. U l ti m ate l y, we hel d that “ a p er so n wh o i s o n l eave w i th pay, with a te m pora ry( though unsat i sfyi ng) r eas si gnm ent pendi n g an i nvest i gat i on o fse ri ous j ob m i sco nduc t, who r es i g ns r athe rtha n wai ts f o r the c o nc l usi on o fr eas on abl e pr escr ibed due proce ss proce du re s o fthe i ns ti tu ti o n, ha s no t fr o m a n obj ect i ve s ta ndpo i nt been const ructi vel y di schar ged. ” Id. at775. I n re sponse, S w ea rn igen pri m ar i l y points t o the c onse quences o fhi s cr i m i nalpro ceedi ngs

—b e i ngc ha r g e d, ar re ste d, and (b ri efl y) j ail ed

— as e vi den ce tha t he en dur ed “ m uchm o r e” tha n the pl aint i ffi n Levens te in
. But no ne o fthe se a ct i o ns i nv o l ve d S wea r ni g en ’ s wor k i ngN o. 09

- 2709 11

T he sam e r equ irem en ts f or p ro v ing d iscrim ina tion ap p ly 6 to cla im s u n d er T it l e V I I, § 19 8 1 , an d § 1 9 8 3
. S ee Hu m ph ri es v. C BO C S Wes t, Inc. , 47 4 F .3 d 38 7, 40 3 -0 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ); D a v is v. Wis . Dep’ to

f Cor r e ct i o ns , 44 5 F .3d 97 1 , 97 6 (7t h C ir . 20 0 6 ). co ndi ti o ns o rthe de fend ants
. S wea r ni g enwas de

- depu

t i z e d a nd t r a ns fe r r e d t o a n e xt e r na l o pe r a t i o ns postby the defendants. But thi s ca m e aft era com prehensi ve i nv es ti g at i o n r ev ea l ed ev i den ce o fmis co nduc t an d d id n ot i m pact hi s pay. M or eov er, ther e i s no ev i dence th at c on dit i ons at the o perat i ons post cam e cl ose to tho se i n P arre tt
. Thi s l eav es S wea r ni g enwi ththe a r g um en t th at h is s u sp en sio n, w ith p ay an d p en d in g h is Loud er m il l hear i ng, c onsti tuted co nstr ucti ve disc harg e. A s S w earn igen l ast ed onl y tw o days o n pai d l eave bef or e r esi gni ng and neve r parti ci pated i n adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ng s, he has an ev en weakerar gum ent than th e pl aint i ffi n Levens te in
. Be cau se no rea s o na ble j ury coul d find th at Swearni gen was co nstr ucti vel y di sc h a r g e d , s u mma r y j u d g me n tw a s p r o p e ro n h i s d i s c r i mi nati on cl ai m s. Even ass um i ng tha t S w earni gen coul d prove an a dvers e e mpl o y me n ta c t i o n, t o a v o i d s u mma r y j u d g me n the w oul d still have to ei therpoi nt to eno ugh evi dence, w h et h er d ire c t o r c irc u m st an tia l, of d isc r im in at or y m ot ivati on t o cre ate a triab le i ssue ( the “ dir ect” m etho d), o r establ i sh a pri m a f aci e ca se und erthe M cDonne l l D ougl as form ula (the “ind irect” m eth od ). Paz v. Wauc onda 6 Heal thc a re & R eha b. C tr. , 464 F.3d 65 9, 66 5 (7 th C ir. 2 00 6). A pri m a f aci e ca se und erthe i nd i re ct m etho d requi re s12 N o. 09

- 2709

I ti s un d ersta ndabl e thatSwea rn i ge n woul d re l y on L ew is , 7 as his counselal so r epres ente d the plai nti ffi n thatcas e. Swearni gen t o prove that (1 ) he i s a m em bero fa protect ed class; ( 2) his j ob p erform an ce m et th e C C D O C ’s l e g i t i ma t e e x p e c t a t i o n s ; ( 3 ) h e s u ffe r e d a n a d v e r s e e mp loy m en t a c tio n ; an d (4) an ot h e r sim ilar ly sit u at ed ind ividu al outsid e his prote cted cla s s w as treate d m ore fav or ab ly. Burks v. Wi s . D ep’ t of Tr ans p. , 46 4 F
. 3d 744, 75 0- 51 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. Af te r m ak i ng th i s sh o wi ng, i fthe de fen dants co unter w i th l egi ti m at e, nondis cri m i natory r easo ns f o r the i r a c t i o ns , S we a r ni g e n wo ul d a l s o ha v e t o sh ow th at th os e re as on s w er e p re te x tu al. Id. at75 1. Swearni gen purpor ts to est abl i sh ge nd erdi sc rim i nation via the d irect m eth od , point ing to H arrison’s Janu ary 2003 s t atem en t as evide nc e of d iscrim inatory m ot iva ti on a nd anal ogi zi ng to Le wis v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 49 6 F
. 3d 64 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. In Lewis , we f ound t h at a 7 su p ervisor’s r em ark “th at he prev en ted [ th e plaintiff ] fro m p ar tic ip at in g on [a j ob ] be c au se sh e w a s a fem ale an d tha t ‘ i t was g o i ngt o b e a w orking tr i p, a nd he th ou gh t i t w o u ld be d an ge ro u s a n d th at [sh e] w ou ld th an k h im for it late r’ ” p re se n te d an iss u e o f fac t fo r tr ial. Id. a t 651. H er e, however, H ar ri son’ s J anuary20 03 sta tem en t tha t she w an ted to rem ove m enfrom t h e w om en ’s divi si on di d n ot concern the em plo ym ent a cti on in questi on, as the fem al e- onl y pol i cy w as not i m p lem en ted u n t i la ft e rS we a r n i g e n r e s i g n e d

. Mo r e o v e r, th e t i me l apse b etween thi s s tat em ent a nd t h e Jul y a nd A ugust acti on s a gainst S w earni gen i s t oo l ong to supp or t a nN o. 09

- 2709 13 in fer en c e o f d isc rim in at ion
. See N ich o ls v. S. Ill. U niv .- E dw ardsvil le, 51 0 F
. 3d 772, 78 1-82 (7 th Ci r. 20 07) ( “[ S] tr ay r emar k s th ata r e ne ithe rpr o xi m at e no rr el at ed to the em p loym en t d ecision are insu ffici en t t o de feat sum m ary j ud g men t
. ” )
. S we a r ni g e n c a nn o ta v o i d s ummar y j ud gme n to n h i s g e n d e rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. Sw ea rn ige nat te m p ts to sh ow rac e d isc rim in at ion via bo thmeth o ds o fpr o o f

. Underthe di r ec t m etho d, he p oin ts to circ u m st an tia l ev id en c e, ar gu in g t h a t s im ilar ly sit u at ed n onb lac k off ice rs w er e t re at ed m or e fa vo ra b ly an d tha t th e defen dan ts ’ pr o ffer ed r ea so ns for t ak i ng action again s t him w ere pre tex tu al. Be cau se th ese are al so re quir ed el em ents ofhi s ca se u n der the i nd i re ct m et h o d , o u r a n a l y s e s ov er lap

. Se eHe m s worth v
. Q uo te sm ith.Com , Inc. , 47 6 F
. 3d 487, 49 0- 91 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( expla i ni ng tha t the i nd i re ct m etho d “i nvolv es a s ubset ofci rcum sta nti alev i dence ( in c lu ding the di spara te tr eat
m ent o fsi m i l ar l y s i tuate d em plo yee s) thatco nfo rm s t o th e pre script ion of [ M cDonne l l D ougl as ]”); Ven t ure l l iv. A R CCm ty. Se rvs . , Inc. , 350 F. 3d 592, 601 ( 7th C ir. 20 03) ( explai ni ng tha t the “pr ete xt” ca teg or y o fci rcum sta nti al ev i den ce unde rthe di r ec t m etho d i s substa nti al l y the sam e as the eviden ce req uired un d er the ind irect m eth od ). The e vi den ce s ho ws tha t ar o un d 20 o ffi ce r s o fv ar i o us r ac es w er e “s us pec ts o fi nt er es t” dur i ngthe i nv es ti g at i o n, i ncl ud i ng m any b l ack officers wh o w er e notu ltim at ely disc i plin ed by the defendants. I fthe defe nd ants had ra ci alani m us, we w oul d ha ve exp ecte d them to ta ke acti on a gainst m or e than thr ee ofthe b lac k s uspects. Swearni gen c onte nd s, however, thato ne si m i l ar l y s i tuate d14 N o. 09

- 2709 whi te o ffi ce r, Usy ak, was t r ea te d m o r e f av orabl y . Butthe defen dan ts t o o ka ct i o n a g ains t Usy ak : l i k e S we arn ig en, he was de

- depu ti ze d a nd s us pen ded wi thpa y pe ndi ng a Loud er m il l hear i ng be f or e he re si gn ed . Th e f act that Usy akwas no t cr i m i na l l y c h a r g ed i s i r r el ev an t bec au se th at d ecision w as m ad e by th e A SA s. Fu r t he rm or e, U sya k i s no t si m i l ar l y s i tuate d because he was suspended f orl i vi ng with a fo rm erd et ain ee , w h ile S wea r ni g enwas s us pen ded f o rha vings ex wi tha cu r re ntdetainee. M ea n w h ile, th e d efe n d an ts offe r leg iti m ate, nondi scr i m inatory re as ons f orthei r acti ons: ( 1) Burns’ s l ett erst ate d that office rs in S w earni gen’ s di vi si on were havi ng se x wi thde ta i ne es ; ( 2) de ta i ne es t o l d i nv es ti g at o r s an d the ASAs tha t S we arn ige n was ha vings ex wi thW ar r i ng to n; ( 3) W ar ringto n adm i tt ed havi ng se xual conta ct with Swea rni gen in the j ai l ; and ( 4) phone r eco rds ind i cate d that Swearni gen a ccepted co l l ect cal l s fro m W ar ringto n to hi s per sonalcel lphone. Genera lOrder 3.8 pro hibi ts th es e ac ts ; th u s, Sw ea rn ige n w as n otm ee tin g h is l egi ti m ate j ob expectat i ons. A nd the f act that Swearni gen w as subsequentl y a cquit ted does notdem onst rate pretex t because the g ove rnm ent b or e a hi gh bur den of p ro of a t t ria l. Se eFaas , 53 2 F
. 3d at 642 ( “Pre text m eans a disho ne s t e xp l a na t i o n, a l i e r a the r tha n a n o ddi t y o r an er ro r. ”) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). Because Swearni gen ha s no t s how n dis cri m i natory m ot ivat i on un de rthe di r e c tme tho d o rc a r r i e d h i s b ur de n und er th e i nd i r e c tme tho d, h e c a nn o ta v o i d s ummar y j ud gme n to n h i s r a c e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m.N o. 09

- 2709 15

Swea rn i ge n c ri t i c i ze s the di s t ri c tj udge’ s i nvo cati on of 8 G ar ce tti, w h i c h w as no t cited b y the d efend an ts un til their re p ly b ri e fo n su m m a ry ju d g m en t. W e fin d th e i ssu e su ffic ie n tly r a i s e d t o b e p re se rv ed o n ap p ea l. SeeHouski ns v. Sheaha n , 54 9 F .3d 48 0 , 49 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). The seco nd i ssue i s whether sum m ar y j ud gm en t was appropri ate o n Swearni gen’ s F i rs t Am endm ent r etal i ati on cl ai m . To e stabl i sh a pri m a f aci e ca se, S w earni gen ha d t o pr es en t ev i den ce tha t ( 1) h is spe ec h was c o ns ti tu
ti onal l y pr ote cted; ( 2) he s uffer ed a depri vati on that woul d l i k ely de ter p r o te ct ed spe ec h; a nd ( 3) the pr o te ct ed spe ec h was a t least a m o ti va tingf ac to ri n the d efe n d an ts ’ ac tio n s. Nagle, 55 4 F
. 3d at 1123
. A fter m aking thi s thres hol d s how i ng, i fthe defe nd ants produce evi dence that they w oul d hav e tak en ac tio n ag ains t S wea r ni g ene ve n in the abs en ce o fhi s spe ec h, S wea r ni g enwou ld al so ha ve t o s ho w tha t th o se r ea so ns w er e p re te x tu al. M as s ey v . Johns on , 45 7 F. 3d 711, 71 7 ( 7th Cir
. 2006 )
. The dist ri ct j ud ge f ound tha t Sw earni gen had not e stabl i shed a pr i m a f aci e ca se. W e a gr ee. Speech is c on sti tuti onal l y pr ote cted i f( 1) the em plo yee spo k e “a s a ci ti ze n on m at te r s o fpub l i c co nc ern” a nd ( 2) h is in ter esti n com m enti ng upon thos e m att er s o utwei g hs the e m pl o y er ’ s i nt er es t i n pr o m o tingthe effic ien c y of it s s er vic es . Nagle, 55 4 F
. 3d at 112 3. W hen em plo yee s m ake st ate m ents “pursuant t o thei r offi ci al du ti es, ” they a re notspeak i ng “a s citize ns” forFi rs t A m en d m en t p u rp os es . Garc e t t iv. Ce b al l os , 54 7 U.S
. 41 0, 42 1 (2 00 6). W h et h er sp ee c h ad d re ss e s a m at te r of p u b lic

816 N o. 09

- 2709

co nc ern mustb e det er m ined by i ts “ co nt en t, f o r m , a nd conte xt, ” C o nn ickv. M yers , 461 U
. S. 138, 147-48 (1983 ), w ith co n te n t b ein g th e m os t im p or ta n t. Nagle, 55 4 F
. 3d at 1123
. T h e m os t c o n te n t-r ich sp ee c h Sw ea rn ige n offe rs is h is J anuary20 03 st at em ent t o H ar ri son, wh i l e o n duty, that h e w ou ld “fig h t” h er effo rt s t o re m o v e all m ale offi cer s fro m the w om en’ s divi si on because i t “w as d iscr i m i na to r y a nd r et al i at o r y . ” I n M ills v. C ityof E va nsv ille, Ind iana , 4 5 2 F
. 3 d 6 4 6 , 6 4 7

- 4 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , h o w e v e r , we hel d that the pl ai nti ffspok e a s a publi c em plo yee w hen, wh i l e o n d u ty and i n unifor m , she obj ecte d to a propo s e d p o l i c y c ha ng e , l e a v i ngthe i mpr e s s i o n tha t she would e nl i st com m unity o rg ani zati ons agai nst i t. Swearni gen l i kewis e was speak i ng in h i s ca paci ty as a publ i c empl o y ee “ co nt ributi ngt o the f o r m at i o n a nd executi on o fo ffi ci alpol i cy” w hen he di sag re ed w i th H ar ris on ’s p lan

. Id. at64 8. A l so w or ki ng ag ain st Swearni gen i s Gener alOrder 3. 8, w hi ch cr eat ed a duty to re port“a ny f act or si tuati on w hi ch m ay gi ve rise to o r be c onst rued as co rr up t, i l l ega l or un eth ical beh avior and /or a p o s sible con fl ict ofi nt eres t. ” S w e a rn ige n cr itic ize s t h is or d er as an effo rtto foil Fi rs t Am endm ent a tta cks bu t fail s t o ackno w l edge that we ha ve a l r ea dy co ns i der ed i t. In Hous ki ns , 54 9 F
. 3d at 491, we hel d that, w hen the pla i nti ffo ffi ceri n the case fi l ed a c om pla i nt with the I A D , s he was “fulfi l l i ng her resp onsibi l i ty as a CCD OC em plo yee to r epor t inci dents o fmis co nduc t . . . pur su an t to the Ge ne r alOr der s” a nd t h e r efo re n otsp ea kin g a s a cit ize n . Seeals o Spiegl a v. H ull,N o. 09

- 2709 17 48 1 F
. 3d 96 1, 9 67( 7th Ci r. 2 007 ) ( fi ndi ngtha t th e pl aint i ff“ ‘ ac te d a s a g o ve r nm en t empl o y ee ’ w hen s he r epo r te d the po ss ibl e m i sc o nduc t to he rs upe r i o ra nd soughtcl ar i fi cati on o fa secur i ty p olicy s he fel t m ay h a v e b e e n b r e a c h e d ” )
. S i mi l a r l y, S we a r n i g e n ’ s c o mpla i nts t o hi s s up er i or s about H ar ri son’ s pro posed pol i cy w er e m ade pursuant to hi s duti es. Swearni gen al so f ai l s t o show that hi s o therspeec h w as const i tuti onal l y prot ecte d. A s the dist rict j ud ge poi nted out, atthi s s tag e S w ea rnig en m ust do m or e than gener al l y ave r th at he “s poke out” on va ri ous i ssues wi th o utpr o vi di nge vi den ce tha t th e con te nt, f o r m , a nd conte xt o ftho se disputes rela te to publi c co ncer ns r ather th an p er s o n al g rie va n c es . See, e . g., Nagle, 55 4 F
. 3d at 1124 ( affi rm i ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent whe re “ the c onte nt o r f or m o fthe sta tem ent .
. . i s uncl earfro m the re cor d, nor i s i t a pp a r e nt ho w the s e s t a t e men t s , wha t e v e r they m ay be, r el ate ei therto [ the pl ai nt iff’ s] j ob as a pol i ce offi cer, hi s sta tus as a ci ti zen, or hi s capaci ty as a u ni on re prese ntati ve”)
. A nd , as f or hi s s peech as a unio n stew ar d fr om 19 90- 2001 and eff or ts to bring i n a ne w unio n i n Feb ruar y 2 002, theyar e too f arr em ove d to s u p p o r t a n infe re n c e o f ret alia to ry m ot ive
. See, e.g., Wal l s ce tti v. Fox , 2 58 F
. 3d 66 2, 6 69 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( fi ndi ng th at a lag t i m e o ff o urmonths , wi th o utmor e, i s to o l o ng to su p p ort a reason able inference of cau sation). Fin ally , eve n if Sw ea rn ige n co u ld es ta b lish a p rim a fa c ie case of re tal i ati on, no ra ti onal j uror coul d fi nd th at th e d efe n d an ts ’ rea so n s fo r ta k i n g a c tio n ag ain st h im w er e pr ete xtual

. A s we d i scusse d i n conj uncti on with18 N o. 09

- 2709 Swearni gen’ s di scr i m i nation cl ai m s, the defe nd ants had substa nti al evi dence that Swearni gen vi ol ate d g en er al or ders, and even a c ri m i nall aw , byenga gi ng i n sexual r el at i o ns wi tha femal e det aine e. M oreo ve r, the de fen d an ts p roceed ed against oth er officers

— who a re not al l ege d to have engag ed i n prot ecte d spe ech

— f or sim i l aral l ege d w ro ngdoi ng. S um m ar y j ud gm ent was p r o p e ro nS we a r ni g e n’ s F i r s tAmen d me n tr e t a l i a t i o nc l a i m. The ne xt i s s ue i s whe the r s ummar y j ud g men twas appropri ate o n Swearnig en’ s m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on c l a i m. T o e s t ab l i s h thi s c l a i m u n d e rI l l i n o i s l a w, S wea r ni g enmusts ho w ( 1) the c o m m en cem ento rc o nti nuati on ofan o ri gi nalcr i m i nalo r ci vi lpro ceedi ng by th e d efe n d an ts ; (2) te rm in at ion of th e p ro c ee d in g in h is f avo r; ( 3) the abse nce o fpro babl e ca use; ( 4) the presence of m al i c e on th e d efe n d an ts ’ p ar t; an d (5) d am ag es . R o ss v. M a uro C hev rol et, 86 1 N
. E.2 d 313, 31 9 (I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 06 ). Th e d ist ric t jud ge fou n d th at Sw ea rn ige n co u ld not sat i sfy the thi rd el em ent. A gain, we agr ee. Pr o b ab l e c a us e i s “ a s t a t e o ff a c ts that w o ul d l e a d a perso n ofo rdi narycauti on a nd prudence to bel i eve , o r en te r ta i n a n h o ne sta nd s tr o ngs us pi ci o n, tha t th e perso n ar re ste d com m i tted the o ffense charg ed. ” Id. “[I ]t re quir es m or e than bare s uspici on but need not be b ase d on e vi dence suffi ci ent t o supp or t a co nvi cti on, norev en a sh ow in gtha t th e o ffi ce r ’ s be l i efi s m o r e l i k ely t r ue than f al se. ” Woods v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 234 F
. 3d 979, 99 6 ( 7th Cir
. 20 00) ( i nter nalquotat ion m ar ks om i tte d). U nd er Illinoi s l aw , a gr and j ury i nd i ctm ent i s pri m a f acie ev id en c e o f p ro b ab le c a u s e. B o ntk o w ski v. U nited Sta tes , 28 F.3d 36 , 37 (7th C ir. 1994).N o. 09

- 2709 19 A s we prev i ousl y di scussed , t he pro ceedi ngs a gainst Sw earni gen were i ni ti ate d because ( 1) a detai nee’ s l ett er state d that officers i n Sw earn igen’s d ivi sion w ere ha vings ex wi thde ta i ne es ; ( 2) de ta i ne es , inc l udi ng W ar r i ng to n h er se l f, s ai d tha t Sw earn i g enwas ha ving sex with W ar ringto n; and ( 3) phone r eco rds i n dica ted that Swearni gen a ccepted co l l ect cal l s fro m W ar ringto n to hi s per sonalcel lphone. S w earni gen a tte m pts to neg at e th i s sh o wi ngb y a cc us i ngthe de fen dan ts ( H ar r i so n, p rim ar ily) of m isc o n d u c t d u rin g t h e in ve st iga tio n . In parti cul ar , Swearni gen f ocus es on ev id en c e that H ar ri son “tr i gge re d” the invest i gat i on a gainst hi m . But, as w e po in ted o ut ato ra lar gum ent, how the invest i gatio n w as t r i g g e r e d is n otth e p oin t. R at h er , th e p oin t is th at, a fter the invest i gat i on was tr i gge re d, evi dence of m isc on d u c t w a s u n c ov er ed , th e A SA s in d ep en d en tly deci ded to b rin g c harg es, and a g ra nd j ury i ssued an i ndi ct m en t

— al lwitho ut any in pu t fro m H ar ri son or the otherdefendants. The f act that Swearni gen was ev en tu al l y a cqui tt ed an d no w offers an i nno cuo us e xpl an at i o n fo rthe pho ne c al l s do es no t ne g at e th e ex ist en c e o f p ro b ab le c au se atth e re lev an t t im e. See Kelley v. M yler, 149 F.3d 64 1, 6 4 7 ( 7t h C ir. 19 98 ) (“[P ]ro b ab le cause does not depend o n the w i tness turn i ng o ut to have b e e n r i g ht; i t ’ s wh a tthe p o l i c e kno w, n o twh ether th ey kn ow th e t ru th , th at m at te rs .”); s e eal s o M us t af a v. C ity of Chi. , 4 42 F
. 3d 54 4, 5 48 ( 7th Ci r. 2 006) ( fi ndi ng tha t th e r e i s “ n o d u t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e e x t e n u a t i n gc i r c u mst an c es or s ea rc h f or ex c u lp at or y e vid en c e o n c e p ro b ab le cause has be en es tabl i shed .

. . ”)
. S um m ar y j ud gm ent was p r o p e ro n S we a r n i g e n ’ s ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m.20 N o. 09

- 2709 M oving o n, we next co nsi der whether sum m ar y j ud gm ent was appro pri ate o n Swearni gen’ s intenti onali nfl i ctio n of em ot ion a l d ist re ss cla im . To p ro ve th is c laim unde rI l l i no i s l aw, S wea r ni g enmusts how th at( 1) the d e fe n d a n t s ’ c o n d u c t wa s e x t r e me a n d o u t r a g e o u s ; ( 2) t he defe nd ants knew that there was a hi gh probabi l i ty that thei r conduct w ou ld cause se ver e e m oti onaldi str ess ; and (3 ) the conduct i n f act caused se ver e e m ot ion aldi str es s. Kolegas v. He

f t e l Br oad. Corp. , 6 07 N
. E. 2d 201, 21 1 ( I l l

. 19 92)
. The di st ric t j ud ge f ound that S w earni gen f ai l ed to sa ti sfy the firs t el em ent. Once ag ai n, we agr ee w i th the di str i ct j ud ge. To meetthe “ ex tr eme a nd o ut rage o us ” st an dar d, the defen dan ts ’ c o nduc t “mustb e so e xt r eme as to g o b ey o nd al lposs ibl e bo und s o fdecency, and to be re gar ded as i ntol er abl e in a civi l i zed co m m unity. ” Id. The evid en ce sh ow s tha t t h e d efend an ts’ only actions w ere de- depu ti zingS wea r ni g en, t ran sf er r i nghi m t o a nothe r post, a n d suspend i ng hi m with paypending a Loud er m il l h ear i ng. E ven when w e a dd H ar ri son’ s a l l ege d “t r i g g er i ng ” o fthe i nv es ti g at i o n a g ains t S wea r ni g en, the c on d uct does notr i se to “extr em e” l eve l s be cause, after th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n wa s t r i g g e r e d , th e C C S P a n d AS As uncover ed evi dence thatsupporte d the ac ti ons tak en a g a i n s th i m. Sw earn igen also claim s th at oth er p eop le heard Shea han cal lhi m a “fugi ti ve” and heard Ku rt ovi ch or der hi m pl aced i n a m axi m um se curi ty ar ea. But, wh en off ered to pr o ve the i rt r uth, S wea r ni g en ’ s st at ement s ar e double hear say, and no excepti on i s offer ed f orthe “oute r lay er ” o f th e h ea rs ay . See, e.g., Ha llo w a y v . M i lw a uk eeN o. 09

- 2709 21

Swea rn i ge n doe s no tc ont en d thatthe al l eg ed r et al i at ion 9 ar os e aft er his EEO C c har ge ha d bee n fi l ed, whi c h woul d not re q u ir e e xh a u sti o n . SeeSt ef f en v. M er i di an Li

fe Ins
. C o. , 859 F .2d 53 4 , 54 5 n .2 (7 th C ir . 19 8 8 ). C ounty, 1 80 F
. 3d 82 0, 8 24- 25 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) ( ho l di ng th a t th e p lain tiff’s te st im on y t h at oth er p eo p le t old h im th at they had heard the defendants di scussing how they coul d “getr i d of” hi m and f or ce hi m to r eti re was i nadm i ssibl e doubl e hea rs ay)
. M or eov er, S w earnigen w as neverpl aced i n a m ax im u m s ecuri ty ar ea but r ather in a o n e -p erson, un locked cellf or a few hou rs before bondi ng o ut. S um m ar y j ud gm ent w as propero n Swearni gen’ s i ntenti on al i nfl i cti on o f em oti onal d i s t r e s s c l a i m. T h e fin al iss u e i s w h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly dism i sse d Sw earni gen’ s Ti tl e VI Ir eta liati on cl ai m because he f ai l ed to br i ng i t in hi s ear l i erEEO C procee ding. 9 W e re vi ew the de ci si o n deno vo , acc epti ng al lwell

- ple d al l ega ti ons as tr ue and drawing al lf avo rabl e infe rences inSw ea rn ige n ’s fa vo r. H uk ic v. A uro ra L o a n S ervs. , 58 8 F. 3d 420, 43 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09). A Ti tl e VI Ipl ai nti ffm ay b rin g on ly th os e c laim s t h at w e r e i n c lu d ed in h is EE OC char ge orthatar e “ l ike orr eas onabl y r el ate d to the a l l ega ti ons ofthe charg e a nd gr owin g out ofsuch al l ega ti ons. ” M cKe nzi ev. Il l
. D ep’ tof Tr ans p. , 9 2 F.3 d 473, 48 1 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); see also G ibso n v . West, 20 1 F
. 3d 990, 994 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 0) (fi nd i ng tha t f ai l ure to exhaust i s no t a j urisd ictional req uirem en t, albeit a r eason f or dism issal)

. To be “l i ke orr eas onabl y r el ate d,” the cl ai m s m us t, at22 N o. 09

- 2709

m i ni m um , de sc r ibe the sam e c o nduc t an d i m pl i ca te the sa m e in d i v id u als

. Che e k v. W
. & S. Li f eIns . Co. , 31 F. 3d 497, 501 (7th C ir. 1994). Swearni gen’ s char ge onl y a l l ege s t h at he ha d been “di sc r i m i na te d a g ains t o n the b as i s o fm y ra ce , Bl ac k, a nd sex, m ale , i n vi ol ati on o fTi tl e VI Io fthe Civi lRi ghts A cti on o f 1 964, as am ended.” A s the di str i ct j ud ge poi nted out, S w earni gen d id notcheckthe box forr etal i ati on o r othe rwis e ind i cate that acti on had bee n tak en agains t him f or reasons other th a n h is race and gend er. N or m al l y, r eta l i ati on a nd di scr i m i nati on char ges ar e no t con side red “li k e or reason ably related ” to one an oth er. Si t arv. Ind. D ep’t o

f Tr ans p. , 344 F.3d 720 , 726 (7th C ir. 20 03 ); Steffen , 8 59 F
. 2d at5 45
. Ins te ad o fdi stingui sh i ng th i s ca se l aw, S wea r ni g enno w bl ames the EEOC, a r g ui ng that the invest i gat orr efused to l et hi m add a r eta l i ati on cl ai m and ci ti ng Fe de ral Expre s s Corp. v. Hol owecki, 55 2 U. S
. 3 89 ( 20 08 ) , i n s uppo r t o fhi s ar gu m enttha t th e dist ri ct j u dge sho uld have l oo ked be yond the f or m al charg e. Hol oweckii s inapp osi te. The i ssue ther e was wh ether an i ntake questi onnai re supplem ented bya si x-page affi davi t const i tutes a “char ge” f orpurposes o fti m el i ness ofan AD EA l aw sui t. The C ourthel d that “ [ i ] n additi on to the i nfo r m a tion requ ired by th e regulations , . . . i f a filin g is t o b e d ee m e d a ch ar ge it m u st be rea so n ab ly const rued as a re quest forthe age ncy t o tak e r em edi al a c tio n to p ro te c t t h e e m p loy ee ’s rig h ts or ot h er w ise se tt le a d i spute betw een the em plo yerand the em plo yee . ” Id. at 40 2. H er e, th e is su e is n otw h et h e r a ch ar ge w as tim elyN o. 09

- 2709 23 fi l ed (i t was) but ra therwh etheri t incl ud ed an al l ega ti on of re ta liat ion
. Se eM or r ow v. M e t r o. Tr ans i tAuth. , N o. 08 CI V. 61 23 ( DLC) , 2 00 9 W L 1 286208, at* 6 ( S
. D. N
. Y. M ay 8, 20 09) ( disc ussi ng r eas ons to rest ri ct Hol owecki to tim eli ne ss issues ). W e h a v e s ug g e s t e d tha twr i t t e n “ [ a ] l l e g a t i o ns o ut s i de th e b od y of t h e c h ar ge m ay be co n sid e r ed w h en it is cl earthatthe charg i ng par ty i ntended the ag en cy to i nv e s t i g a t e the a l l e g a ti ons. ” Vela v. Vill
. of Sauk Vill. , 21 8 F.3 d 66 1, 66 4 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); cf. N o vi t s ky v
. Am
. Cons ul t i ng Eng ’rs , L
. L
. C. , 19 6 F
. 3d 69 9, 70 2 ( 7th Ci r . 19 99 ) ( r ej ec ting r el i an ce o n que st i o nna i r e wher e th e pl aint i ffre ad th e f o r m alc ha r g e and o bt aine d l eg ala dvi ce b efo r e si g ni ng i t)
. But her e, eve n i fwe exam i ne S w earni gen’ s intake q u es tio nnai re , we fi nd thati t doe s no t s tat e a char ge ofr eta l i ati on. Dis m i ssa lo fS w earn igen’ s Ti tl e VI Ir eta l i ation claim w as p rop er. I n sum , Swearni gen w as one of m any s uspects i n a wider a ng i n gi n v e s t i g a t i o n o fc u s t o d i a ls e x u a lmi s c o n d u c t
. He ha s no t sh o wn th ati m pr o permot i va ti o ns

— as opposed to c o r r o bo r at ed ev i den ce o fwron g do i ng

— ca us ed th e d efe n d an ts to ta ke ac tio nag ain st h i m . Th is u ltim at ely d oo m s his clai m s. T he j ud gm en ts of the d istri ct cou rt ar e A FFI RMED .

4- 22- 10