Opinion ID: 1276632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nagle's retaliation claim also fails.

Text: 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.