Opinion ID: 1276632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary judgment was appropriate on Nagle's retaliation claim.

Text: Nagle filed EEOC charges on January 19, 2005, February 23, 2005, and May 9, 2005. He contends that the defendants retaliated against him for filing these charges by: suspending him for three days on February 11, 2005; assigning him to the senior liaison position in March 2005; suspending him for five days on April 23, 2005; changing his court key date on May 10, 2005; and assigning him to strip mall detail on September 9, 2005. Nagle proceeds under both the direct and the indirect methods to establish his retaliation claim. Although Title VII's antiretaliation provisions are not limited to ultimate employment decisions, Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006), Nagle must show that the actions of which he complains were materially adverse and produced an injury or harm that would have `dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.' Id. at 67-68, 126 S.Ct. 2405. Some of the actions which Nagle claims were retaliatory do not meet this threshold. Moreover, Nagle cannot establish that Chief Davis knew about his January 2005 EEOC charge prior to suspending him in February 2005, so his retaliation claim fails.
Nagle maintains that his assignments to the senior liaison position and to strip mall detail were both adverse actions in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination. While Nagle's assignment to the senior liaison position or strip mall detail did not involve any change in his pay, hours, or prospects for advancement within the department, the test is an objective one that considers [w]hether a particular reassignment is materially adverse depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and `should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering `all the circumstances.'' Id. at 71, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (citation omitted). While one can imagine situations in which reassignment to less desirable details or positions would dissuade a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination, here the senior liaison position was posted for other officers to apply, and after no one applied, Nagle was assigned to the position. This fact arguably cuts both ways: the senior liaison position had to be filled by some-one and an employer is entitled to fill the position. In the alternative, an employer is not entitled to be punitive in his assignmentshe cannot assign an employee to a less favored position because that employee has exercised his statutory rights. Nagle has offered no evidence that his assignment to the senior liaison position was punitive the senior liaison position continued to exist after Nagle was reassigned, and another officer was assigned to take his place after his tenure ended. The same is true of strip mall detailboth white and non-white officers worked this duty. Nagle claims that he faced discipline if he refused to work the strip mall detail whereas other officers are ordered to work it, and they don't and nothing happens to them, but this statement is wholly unsupported by the record. Nagle has not pointed to any evidence to support his claim that others were not punished for refusing to work strip mall detail. The change in Nagle's court key date is also not materially adverse. Nagle maintains that this disruption rises to the level of an adverse action because he has had the same court key date for 27 years and an officer's schedule is adjusted around this date. As we have cautioned in the past, a materially adverse change must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. Crady v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir.1993). While disruptive in that the change altered the date on which Nagle had to attend court, the change did not have a tangible impact on his job responsibilities or benefits, nor did it require that he attend court any more than usual. In April 2005, Nagle was suspended for violating the department's sick time policy, and he alleges that this suspension was in retaliation for both his January 19, 2005, and February 23, 2005, EEOC charges. It is undisputed that a suspension can constitute an adverse action. Whittaker v. N. Ill. Univ., 424 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir.2005). Although Nagle filed a grievance regarding this suspension, he never served the suspension because the grievance was resolved in his favor. We have explicitly held that a suspension without pay that is never served does not constitute an adverse employment action. Id. at 647. While Nagle admits that he never served the suspension, he argues that the April 2005 suspension should constitute an adverse action because he was faced with the prospect that the suspension would be upheld upon resolution of his grievance. Cf. Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 72, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (finding retaliation even where the plaintiff received back pay because the plaintiff and her family had to live for 37 days without income. They did not know during that time whether or when [the plaintiff] could return to work. Many reasonable employees would find a month without a paycheck to be a serious hardship. And [the plaintiff] described to the jury the physical and emotional hardship that 37 days of having `no income, no money' in fact caused.). Unlike the plaintiff in Burlington Northern, however, Nagle did not suffer any hardship connected with the suspension because he never actually served it. Uncertainty as to whether the suspension will be upheld is not equivalent to actually serving the suspension because the plaintiff does not have to endure the same economic harm. See Whittaker, 424 F.3d at 647 (Typically, adverse employment actions are economic injuries.); see also Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Servs., 336 F.3d 520, 531 (7th Cir.2003) (An unfulfilled threat, which results in no material harm, is not materially adverse.). Therefore, we find that the April 2005 suspension which Nagle never served does not constitute an adverse action. Accordingly, none of these actions would deter a reasonable employee from filing a complaint of discrimination. [4]
We are left with Nagle's February 2005 suspension for conducting union business while on duty. Nagle filed a grievance regarding this suspension, and the Illinois Labor Relations Board reversed the suspension and ordered the police department to reimburse Nagle for his losses. The February 2005 suspension presents a different issue because unlike the April 2005 suspension, Nagle served the suspension and lost pay. Although Nagle's suspension was ultimately found to be improper, a reasonable jury still could find that having to serve the suspension would dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. See Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 73, 126 S.Ct. 2405. After all, no one knew whether the suspension would be reversed or upheld, and reimbursement of lost pay is not sufficient to defeat Nagle's Title VII retaliation claim. See Phelan v. Cook County, 463 F.3d 773, 780 (7th Cir.2006) (Consistent with Title VII's goal of deterring discrimination, we decline to endorse a rule that would allow employers to escape liability by merely reinstating the aggrieved employee months after termination, whenever it becomes clear that the employee intends to pursue her claims in court. Such a rule could create an unintended economic incentive for employers to reinstate an employee who files a discrimination suit as means to avoid Title VII penalties whenever the costs of reinstating the employee are lower than the employer's exposure in a Title VII suit.). Nonetheless, Nagle has failed to show that there is a causal connection between the suspension and his statutorily protected activity sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir.2007). Nagle filed EEOC charges on January 19, 2005, but Nagle has not shown that Chief Davis was aware that he filed a grievance in February 2005. This dooms his claim not only under the direct method, but also under the indirect method. See Mattson v. Caterpillar, Inc., 359 F.3d 885, 888 (7th Cir.2004) (Under the direct method, the plaintiff must provide either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence that shows that the employer acted based on prohibited animus.); Tomanovich v. City of Indianapolis, 457 F.3d 656, 668-69 (7th Cir.2006) ([P]roof of retaliation under the indirect method presupposes that the decision-maker knew that the plaintiff engaged in a statutorily protected activity, because if an employer did not know the plaintiff made any complaints, it `cannot be trying to penalize him for making them.') (citation omitted). The EEOC charge was mailed to the department on January 27, 2005, and the correspondence indicated that it should be given to Chief David rather than Chief Davis. Additionally, the envelope was addressed to Personnel Manager, Human Resources Department, Village of Calumet Park. The district court surmised from this evidence that no jury could reasonably conclude that Chief Davis was aware of the EEOC charge at the time of the February 2005 suspension. We agree. In order to establish retaliation pursuant to Title VII, the employer must have had actual knowledge of the protected activity in order for its decisions to be retaliatory; it is not sufficient that [an employer] could or even should have known about [an employee's] complaint. Tomanovich, 457 F.3d at 668. While the EEOC notice conceivably could have sat in the personnel department for two weeks, it is also possible that the personnel manager surmised that Chief David was in fact Chief Davis and passed on the notice to him in a timely fashion, but Nagle has presented no evidence showing this to be the case. Moreover, on January 25, 2005, Chief Davis ordered Nagle to prepare a memo regarding his actions in conducting union business while on duty, sent Nagle a memo indicating Davis's belief that Nagle had violated department rules, and requested Nagle's explanation before issuing discipline. All of this occurred prior to when the EEOC sent Nagle's charge to the department, which occurred on January 27, 2005. We find that Nagle has presented no evidence to show that Chief Davis was aware of the EEOC charge at the time of the February 2005 suspension. [5] Accordingly, Nagle has not established that the defendants retaliated against him in violation of Title VII.