Opinion ID: 2820141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Swanson’s Title VII Claims

Text: Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. Henry v. Jones, 507 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). To prove a Title VII violation, a plaintiff can avail himself of either the direct or indirect method of proof. Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 578 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2009). Proceeding under the direct method of proof requires a plaintiff to put forth direct (or sufficient circumstantial) evidence indicating that he experienced intentional discrimination. Id. Under the indirect method of proof, a plaintiff needs to show that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) who met his employer’s legitimate job expectations, (3) yet suffered an adverse employment action, (4) that similarly situated employees outside his protected class did not. See Nacify, 697 F.3d at 511. But, to bring a Title VII claim at all—as the district court noted (and as Swanson acknowledges)—a plaintiff must file a complaint with the EEOC within 300 days of experiencing the complained-of discrimination. Peters v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 307 F.3d 535, 550 (7th Cir. 2002). A fatal problem for Swanson, then, is that the specific racially offensive incidents about which he complains all occurred years before he filed his EEOC charge on September 14, 2010. And, even being as generous as possible to Swanson and assuming that similar remarks were made as late as his last day of active employment on September 30, 2009 (and assuming, for argument’s sake, that the mere utterance of such a remark can constitute unlawful discrimination under Title VII), Swanson’s 10 No. 14-3309 September 14, 2010 filing still was too late; July 27, 2010 marked 300 days from his last day on the job. Swanson tries to skirt the timeliness issue by arguing that his 300-day clock did not commence until December 10, 2009, when Chief Miller told him that he would most likely be reassigned to the patrol division upon his return to the police department. He contends that this was a demotion and thus an adverse employment action. We agree with Swanson that a demotion can constitute an adverse employment action. See Hicks v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook Cnty., Ill., 677 F.3d 781, 787 (7th Cir. 2012). However, the Supreme Court has been clear that Swanson cannot sue for otherwise time-barred conduct in this instance. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113–17 (2002). A plaintiff who complains of discrete discriminatory acts (as Swanson purports to do), must report each act to the EEOC in the required timeframe. Id. at 114. By contrast, a plaintiff who makes a hostile work environment claim may invoke the continuing violations doctrine and recover for related employer conduct outside the limitations period; the theory is that “[a] hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one ‘unlawful employment practice.’” Id. at 117. Swanson, however, does not make such a claim. Thus, Swanson’s allegations of discrimination during the course of his active employment are time-barred, and he may only pursue his demotion complaint. To be actionable under Title VII, Swanson must show that his employer’s action was discriminatory in nature. Problematic for Swanson, then, is that there is no direct No. 14-3309 11 evidence that he was being reassigned because of his race or national origin. Nor is there a reasonable inference to be drawn from the past derogatory comments that he cites, none of which were made by Chief Miller. Rather, the parties’ Statements of Facts establish that Swanson’s interactions with Miller were “always professional” and that Miller “never made statements to Swanson that Swanson considered unprofessional or harassing or derogatory.” Accordingly, Swanson cannot establish a connection between the alleged racially offensive comments made to him over the years and his potential reassignment to the patrol division in December 2009, such that a discriminatory motive can be imputed to Miller. 2 2 Swanson’s Title VII allegations also encompass a complaint that he was excluded from investigations following his first stroke. This claim fails for the same reason; no reasonable inference can be drawn linking the Village’s conduct to the racial animus he seeks to attribute to Village employees who are said to have made offensive remarks about Puerto Ricans during his employ. Swanson also seems to argue that the Village’s denial of his request for “light duty” constituted racial discrimination. But here, again, Swanson offers a dearth of evidentiary support. He cites the names of several white officers to whom the Village provided “light duty” in the past. But he provides us only with the type of injury that they suffered— including a shattered fibula, broken ankle, a torn rotator cuff, and pregnancy—none of which resembles Swanson’s stroke. Moreover, Swanson provides us no information about the doctor recommendations of his proposed comparators (i.e., whether, unlike Swanson, their doctors recommended that they be confined to a desk). Therefore, without more information, we cannot draw a meaningful comparison and, thus, determine whether these folks are similar enough to permit a reasonable inference of discrimination. See Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835, 841 (7th Cir. 2012). 12 No. 14-3309 Moreover, because Swanson never returned to work after his second stroke, he never experienced the demotion about which he complains. Therefore, he never actually suffered an adverse employment action at all. No financial consequences flowed from this potential job change either. His disability pension was based on his salary as of his last day of active work (September 30, 2009), so he felt no monetary impact from his possible reassignment to a different division. 3 As we have said, “not everything that makes an employee unhappy will suffice to meet the adverse action requirement. Rather, an employee must show that material harm has resulted from … the challenged actions.” Traylor v. Brown, 295 F.3d 783, 788–89 (7th Cir. 2002) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Swanson falls far short of demonstrating that he suffered an adverse employment action on account of his membership in a protected class. Therefore, even if his claims were not time-barred, he could not make out a Title VII violation under either the direct or indirect method of proof.