Opinion ID: 2997310
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s Decision on Promotion

Text: 7 Acknowledging the ambiguity in the jury’s verdict, the district court proceeded to determine that Superintendent Carraway, the current Superintendent, had not acted out of racial animus or retaliatory motive when he had not promoted Officer Miles from the rank of First Sergeant to 8 Captain. Fairly read, the district court’s order noted that the 6 (...continued) Records Division and during a time when he was not promoted. Both employment actions occurred after Officer Miles’ complaints, therefore, leaving open the possibility that the jury’s finding of retaliation was based on either premise or both. 7 The district court noted that, “although, the jury found Defendant liable on Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation, it is not clear from the jury verdict whether the jury’s finding of retaliation was based upon Defendant’s failure to promote Plaintiff or the fact that Jennings, the Defendant’s former Superintendent, reassigned him to the Records division.” R.170 at 9. 8 Officer Miles emphasizes a connection between Carraway’s claim that Miles lacked loyalty and the derogatory racial statements made to Carraway that Miles complained about. He summarizes testimony from Superintendent Carraway that, he asserts, indicates that the racial comment played a role in his relationship with (continued...) No. 02-4295 15 Superintendent had the authority, as a matter of discretion, to make promotions to the rank of Captain and above and that the Superintendent therefore was permitted to use his estimation of an officer’s loyalty to him in making such promotions. The court supported its conclusion by noting that Superintendent Carraway had testified that he did not believe Officer Miles would be loyal to him or his administration. The court’s findings establish that the retaliation suffered by Officer Miles was with respect to his assignment to the Records Division without any supervisory responsi- 9 bility. Because the district court determined that the retaliation suffered by Officer Miles was traceable to his assignment to the Records Division, and not to his allegation of discrimination with respect to promotion, the matter of front pay was not really at issue. As we have noted earlier, front pay 8 (...continued) Carraway. The testimony cited does not support this contention or require us to find that the district court’s factual conclusion was clearly erroneous. On direct examination, Carraway was asked whether the “comment played any role . . . in the relationship between the two of you?” He answered: “Probably from his [Officer Miles’] perspective, and I don’t have any facts to think that he’s carried that around with him, but it has not stayed with me, but I do recall the incident. I know he took offense to it. . . . And I think he’s sort of carried that on for a number of years.” R.192 at 475. 9 Our conclusion is supported by the district court’s decision refusing to enjoin future retaliation. See infra Part II.B. The district court found that the State Police had a “new administration” from the one that had retaliated against Officer Miles in the past. R.170 at 12 ¶ 27. The current superintendent did not have improper motives, and therefore there was no concrete danger of future retaliation. 16 No. 02-4295 is an equitable remedy that is awarded in lieu of promotion when promotion is inappropriate or unavailable. See Pals, 220 F.3d at 499. “[F]ront pay is the functional equivalent of [promotion] because it is a substitute remedy that affords the plaintiff the same benefit (or as close an approximation as possible) as the plaintiff would have received had she been [promoted].” Williams v. Pharmacia, Inc., 137 F.3d 944, 952 (7th Cir. 1998). When the district court concluded that promotion was not appropriate because the jury verdict of retaliation properly was interpreted as based on the reassignment rather than on the failure to promote, the court had no need to consider front pay as an alternate to promotion.