Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A couple, driving through Madison, saw a man in a Jeep holding what appeared to be a handgun pointed at the ceiling of the Jeep. They called the police. Asked whether the driver was threatening anyone, the caller replied, “[N]o … we couldn’t tell if it was real.” She stated that the man had parked at Dexter’s Pub and that he had been driving “badly.” Officers Lomas, Chaney, and others arrived. As they approached the Jeep, Gibbs walked out of the bar. He matched a description that had been provided. Gibbs complied with instructions to put his hands on the wall. Lomas handcuffed Gibbs. Chaney frisked him. Gibbs stated that he was the driver of the Jeep. Lomas placed Gibbs in the squad car and explained that someone had seen him pointing a gun in the car. Gibbs stated that he had airsoft guns in his car and had been returning from an airsoft event where he had been a referee. Airsoft guns are replicas of firearms. Lomas claims that Gibbs consented to her looking in the Jeep. Gibbs testified that he had denied permission, but had offered to get the items for her. Lomas searched the Jeep and found airsoft guns and a plastic knife. The officers issued a misdemeanor citation for disorderly conduct, which was later dismissed. Gibbs sued Lomas under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He did not sue any of the other officers. The district court denied Lomas’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Even if Gibbs had a constitutional right to be free from this arrest and search, that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident. View "Gibbs v. Lomas" on Justia Law

In 2007 Huang, a systems and software engineer, had worked for CNA commercial insurance for eight years. In March, Huang was transferred to a new, four-member team. CNA required every member of Huang’s team to be on “pager duty” every fourth weekend, carrying a pager at home and being available to respond 24 hours a day throughout the assigned weekend. Huang repeatedly refused pager duty, citing family obligations, even after his supervisor and human resources reminded him that he could be fired for refusing. Huang offered to work from the office on Sundays in exchange for having Mondays off but refused pager duty. Around this time, Huang’s supervisor stated, for reasons unrelated to pager duty, that Huang was “pissing [him] off.” Huang emailed the human resources department to complain. Two years earlier, Huang had complained about another supervisor’s “favoritism.” Four months after Huang’s first refusal of pager duty, Huang’s supervisor and a human resources agent gave him one final opportunity to comply. When he refused, CNA discharged him. Consistent with CNA’s practice, it asked Huang for a list of his belongings so that someone could retrieve them from his desk. When Huang refused and demanded to return to his work station, human resources called security. Police escorted Huang out and arrested him. CNA did not press charges. After pursuing administrative remedies, Huang filed suit, claiming discrimination based on race and national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2000e-17) and that by firing him and having him arrested, CNA unlawfully retaliated for his earlier complaints. The district court granted CNA summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Huang v. Cont'l Cas. Co." on Justia Law

According to the 2010 Census, Hazel Crest was 85.2% black and 10.2% white, but had no black supervisory police officers until 2005. Garofalo and Peers, both white, were sergeants on the police force and were among four front-runners considered for a deputy police chief position, which ultimately went to a black officer who was not one of those four candidates. They claimed that the village discriminated against them by promoting a black officer they contend is unqualified and sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and under Illinois state law. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Garofalo and Peers failed to present sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find that they were the object of unlawful discrimination. Defendants offered evidence that Garofalo suffered from a lack of leadership and deficiencies in decision-making abilities. Peers had a reputation for a “volatile and unstable personality,” and did not have the respect of the men he supervised. Garofalo and Peers did not present evidence to counter that explanation and permit a finding of pretext. View "Garofalo v. Vill. of Hazel Crest" on Justia Law

The Chippewa County Highway Department employed Kvapil as a seasonal employee, 2006-2008. When he was hired, Kvapil completed a New Employee Orientation for Limited Term Employees Form that advised him of work rules. Kvapil acknowledged receiving the Employment Handbook by signing a receipt that stated that all county employees are employees at will; the Handbook also contained a provision entitled “At Will Employment.” Kvapil owns property in the Town of Wheaton, Chippewa County. From 2000 until 2008, Clary, the County Planning and Zoning Administrator, contacted Kvapil about Kvapil storing unlicensed and inoperable vehicles on that property. During the zoning dispute, Kvapil made threats of violence to Clary. After Kvapil failed to comply, a warrant issued and officers searched the Wheaton property. The county issued a citation. Kvapil visited the Planning and Zoning Department’s Office demanding documents and became hostile, tore up the warrant, threw it at Clary, and said “you’re going down.” After a series of emails discussing the county’s “zero tolerance policy towards any violence or threat,” Kvapil was suspended for one day. A letter notified Kvapil that further infractions would subject him to more severe discipline, including discharge. Subsequently, there was a report that Kvapil had run a private citizen off the road. After his termination, Kvapil filed suit, alleging a property interest in his seasonal work, absent commission of an infraction specified in the handbook. The district court rejected the argument. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Kvapil v. Chippewa Cnty." on Justia Law

Petty was arrested on the suspicion that he, along with another person, shot and killed Counsel and wounded two others. Petty was identified as the shooter and was indicted for murder, but was found not guilty. After his acquittal, Petty filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the city and individual Chicago Police Department officers arguing that the officers violated his due process rights by intentionally mishandling the shooting investigation and prosecuting him for murder based on falsified evidence. Petty alleged that officers held a witness, Tarver, in a room for more than 13 hours without food, water, or access to a bathroom until he implicated him. He also alleged that they concealed evidence and failed to disclose their misconduct in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The district court rejected the claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Petty was aware of the alleged misconduct before trial and had ample opportunity to make use of the information at trial. Petty’s “coerced evidence” claim was not cognizable under the Due Process Clause. Petty did not suffer a constitutional injury sufficient to support his claim that the city was liable for the officers’ conduct because it had a policy of detaining people believed to be witnesses for extended periods against their will. View "Petty v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In 1996, Whitfield applied for an electrician position at Navistar’s plant. Navistar hired 16 electricians while Whitfield’s application was pending. The written job description required that an applicant have either eight years of experience or a journeyman card. Whitfield allegedly had nine years of experience, with four years in the U.S. Navy. A foreman interviewed Whitfield and stated he would hire him if the Union verified the required experience. The Union was allegedly unable to verify his experience through numerous employers, but did not consider Whitfield’s experience in the Navy. Whitfield continued to work elsewhere as an electrician and to provide additional references. In 1998, Whitfield obtained an IBEW card, so there was no doubt that he met the requirements. The Union cleared him for hire, and returned Whitfield’s file to the foreman, who opened his folder and saw that the word “black” written on the cover sheet. While the resubmitted application was pending, Navistar hired five white electricians. Whitfield was never formally rejected but in 1999 the foreman told him that Navistar would not allow him to hire Whitfield. At trial Navistar asserted errors in his resume and lack of PLC experience, an allegedly unstated qualification. In 2001 Whitfield and 26 others sued Navistar under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). The district court certified the other plaintiffs’ hostile work environment class and ordered that Whitfield’s hiring discrimination claim remain part of the case for discovery, but separated his claim for trial. The hostile work environment action settled during trial. During joint discovery there was extensive evidence showing extreme racial hostility at the plant. At Whitfield’s 2012 trial, the court rejected his submission regarding evidence from the class trial and concluded that his evidence was insufficient to prove discrimination. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting an updated EEOC chart as clear and persuasive evidence that Whitfield was more qualified than many of the white electricians Navistar hired. View "Whitfield v. Int'l Truck & Engine Corp." on Justia Law

Bunn, who is legally blind, quit his job at a Dairy Queen franchise and sued the franchisee under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112. Bunn believed that the employer failed to accommodate his disability and subjected him to illegal disparate treatment when it reduced his scheduled hours during the winter months. The district court granted the employer summary judgment on all claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The employer did reasonably accommodate Bunn’s disability by giving him a regular work station, unlike other employees who were required to rotate stations. The undisputed facts show that he was suspended due to insubordinate conduct towards a supervisor, that his hours decreased following the suspension, and that the restaurant saw decreased demand during the cold weather months and adjusted many employee schedules accordingly. View "Bunn v. Khoury Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Averhart, formerly a guard at the Cook County Jail, was suspended without pay in 2001 and fired in 2003. She had filed an EEOC charge of discrimination in 2000 and was investigated for smuggling drugs and contraband to prisoners. She had been arrested for shoplifting. She claimed retaliation for her corroboration of a coworker’s claims of sexual harassment and filed her first of four federal lawsuits in 2001. She has lost them all, along with two state suits. The district court dismissed the fourth suit as barred by the earlier decisions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the suit frivolous. The court noted that she was never an employee of the Merit Board, which approved her firing; that a claim against the Sheriff’s Department was filed almost a decade beyond the statute of limitations; and that new theories of race and sex discrimination do not avoid preclusion, which requires all legal theories that concern the same events to be brought in a single suit. The court gave Averhart 14 days to show cause why it should not impose sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38, possibly including a financial penalty and an order revoking her privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis. View "Averhart v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff" on Justia Law

In 1971 Cannon was convicted of murder. He was paroled and was a general in the El Rukn street gang when he became involved in a second murder and was arrested by the Chicago Police Department’s Violent Crimes division. He was threatened and tortured until he confessed that he was driving the car in which the murder occurred. Immediately after leaving police custody, Cannon recanted his confession and complained to the Office of Professional Standards. The complaint was dismissed. Cannon's confession was used at his 1984 trial; he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. In 1986, Cannon filed a federal complaint, asserting torture. By this time, there had been news reports of other incidents but it was not known that the abuse against African American men was pervasive and occurred with the complicity of then-commander Burge. In 1988, on his attorney’s advice, Cannon settled for the $3000 nuisance value offered by the defendants and signed a broad release of his claims. Cannon also appealed his conviction. By the time of a second remand, the judge who originally ruled on Cannon’s motion to suppress was caught accepting bribes and there was evidence that the officers who procured his confession regularly used torture. In 2001, Cannon agreed to plead guilty, without admitting guilt, to armed violence and conspiracy to commit murder, in exchange for a sentence of 40 years’ imprisonment. Ultimately, the state dismissed the 1983 murder charges solely because neither side anticipated the effect of the plea agreement on Cannon’s parole status for the 1971 conviction. By the time a court ordered a new hearing on that issue, Cannon had been in prison for 23 years for the 1983 murder. Cannon filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court dismissed, based on the release in the 1986 case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, acknowledging that the case “casts a pall of shame” over the city, the officers, and the trial judge, but also on Cannon. Cannon settled knowing that the defendants were lying. There was no evidence that, at the time he settled, the purposefully concealed a broader scandal. View "Cannon v. Burge" on Justia Law

Huon, a lawyer representing himself, sued his former employer Johnson & Bell, and its attorneys, for intentional discrimination based on race (Asian) and national origin (Cambodian) in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), and 42 U.S.C. 1981. After remand, the district court granted the defendants judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Huon’s suit was barred by claim preclusion because it arose out of the same “series of connected transactions” as claims that he previously litigated in state court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims mirrored those raised in state court.View "Huon v. Johnson & Bell, Ltd." on Justia Law