Hanners v. Trent
| Decision Date | 19 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–1754.,11–1754. |
| Citation | 95 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44459,114 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 965,674 F.3d 683 |
| Parties | Flynn HANNERS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Larry TRENT, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John A. Baker (argued), Attorney, Baker, Baker & Krajewski, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Rachel A. Murphy (argued), Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN, District Judge.*RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.
Flynn Hanners, a former Master Sergeant with the Illinois State Police (“ISP”), brought this action in the district court, alleging that fellow ISP employees Larry Trent, Harold Nelson, Lance Adams, Richard Woods and Leonard Stallworth discriminated against him because of his race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Mr. Hanners now timely appeals. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A. Facts1. The Email
On February 4, 2008, Mr. Hanners, then a Master Sergeant in the Medicaid Fraud Control Bureau of the ISP, sent an email that included pictures and descriptions of eleven fictitious Barbie Dolls to sixteen fellow ISP employees; Mr. Hanners sent the email using his ISP computer and email account.1 Each fictitious doll was a caricature of a stereotypical woman living in an identifiable area in and around Springfield, Illinois.
One of the original recipients, Special Agent Stacy Conner, forwarded the email to three additional ISP employees, including Sergeant Brenda Burton. Concerned that the email might have been “a set up to see how she would react as a supervisor,” R.28–1 at 16, Sergeant Burton brought it to the attention of her own supervisor and noted that the email likely was forwarded to her by mistake.
On April 21, 2008, Captain Scott Rice, Commander of Zone 7, where Sergeant Burton was assigned, completed a Complaint Against Department Member (“CADM”) form against Special Agent Conner, and the case was referred to the ISP's Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) office shortly thereafter.
The email also was brought to the attention of defendant Richard Woods, who held the position of Investigative Support Commander and was in Mr. Hanners's chain of command. Commander Woods shared the email with his own direct supervisor and with Captain Gordon Fidler, the chief of Mr. Hanners's bureau. Commander Woods directed Captain Fidler to open an investigation and, in particular, to determine whether Mr. Hanners was indeed the source of the email. The email also was brought to the attention of defendants Colonel Harold Nelson, Deputy Director of the Division of Operations; Lieutenant Colonel Leonard Stallworth, Assistant Deputy Director of Special Operations and Lieutenant Colonel Lance Adams, Assistant Deputy Director of Field Operations. All of the defendants except for Lieutenant Colonel Adams were in Mr. Hanners's direct chain of command at the time the email incident took place.
In accordance with Commander Woods's instructions, Captain Fidler contacted the Division of Internal Investigations (“DII”) to determine the appropriate course of action. On April 3, 2008, as part of the reporting process, Captain Fidler filed a CADM with DII regarding the email sent by Mr. Hanners.
After reviewing the complaint, DII referred the incident back to Captain Fidler with instructions to continue the investigation. Captain Fidler asked Lieutenant Sheryl Anderson–Martin, Mr. Hanners's direct supervisor, to handle the investigation. As part of the investigation, Lieutenant Anderson–Martin conducted a series of three interviews with individuals who had direct knowledge of the email incident: Sergeant Burton, Special Agent Conner and Mr. Hanners. During his interview, Mr. Hanners admitted to sending the email to fellow ISP employees, including Special Agent Conner. After she completed the investigation, Lieutenant Anderson–Martin met with Captain Fidler to discuss her findings and recommendations. Once the initial investigation was complete, DII resumed control of the investigation and informed Captain Fidler that the matter had been referred to the EEO office.
Although the exact timing is not clear from the record, the EEO office became involved in the investigation of the email incident through the submission of Captain Fidler's CADM. Among its other responsibilities, the EEO office maintains an internal complaint process, which includes options for investigation and mediation. This complaint process, set out in a written ISP policy, requires an employee filing a complaint with the EEO office to sign an intake questionnaire that provides a narrative of what occurred and how the alleged activity constitutes discrimination, harassment or retaliation. Suzanne Bond, Chief of the ISP EEO office, testified in her deposition that a supervisor also may refer an incident to the EEO office by submitting a signed CADM through DII.2
As part of the investigation into Mr. Hanners's email, the EEO office contacted all of the email recipients, but none of these individuals was willing to file a complaint against Mr. Hanners that would state that he had been offended by the email. However, during his interview with the EEO officer, Mr. Hanners eventually admitted that sending the email was an improper use of his ISP email account and acknowledged that he had received training on EEO policies in the past.
Sergeant Robert Sgambelluri, the EEO officer in charge of Mr. Hanners's investigation, concluded that, “[w]hile the contents of the email were related to race, sexual orientation, parental status, pregnancy, family responsibilities, and the characteristics of gender, no person receiving the email reported being offended by its contents.” R.28–2 at 45. Notably, he found that none of the individuals who received the email believed that “it interfered with [his] work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, abusive or offensive work environment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Sergeant Sgambelluri ultimately concluded that the investigation did not warrant a charge of hostile work environment under ISP policy.
Sergeant Sgambelluri did conclude, however, that the email “contained derogatory references to women, African Americans, and other categories of people, and presented negative and demeaning stereotypes of these groups.” Id. He therefore determined that Mr. Hanners's act of transmitting the content of the email to others using an ISP computer and email, without a business reason, was contrary to various ISP policies, including PER–009, which provides that the ISP “will ensure managers and supervisors recognize their responsibility for carrying out the spirit and intent of the EEO Program.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, Sergeant Sgambelluri determined that the results of the investigation supported charging Mr. Hanners with violating several Rules of Conduct pertaining to misuse of ISP equipment.
Chief Bond agreed with Sergeant Sgambelluri's finding that Mr. Hanners violated ISP policy and forwarded to ISP Director Larry Trent her recommendation that Mr. Hanners be charged with violating the Rules of Conduct. Chief Bond's recommendation to Director Trent included a citation to PER–009, III.6.C.3 The memorandum also included recommendations for discipline for three other individuals who had further disseminated the Barbie Doll email, including Special Agent Conner.4
Director Trent reviewed the EEO office's recommendations and determined that Mr. Hanners should be disciplined in accordance with Chief Bond's recommendations. He then forwarded the recommendations to Colonel Nelson and instructed him to “advise the EEO Office what actions you have taken in response to the charges identified above within 30 days of your receipt of this information.” R.28–2 at 48.
2. The Disciplinary Review Board
An ISP officer facing disciplinary action has the right to appear before the Disciplinary Review Board (“the Board”), composed of the Deputy Directors, and to present his own perspective on the case. As part of the process, an officer who takes full responsibility for his actions may agree to a settlement with the Board, and, in doing so, receive a reduced disciplinary penalty. Prior to his appearance before the Board, Mr. Hanners was offered a settlement by Colonel Nelson. Its terms would have reduced his suspension from thirty days to ten to fifteen days—the same suspension that Colonel Nelson was offering to two other officers who were facing similar charges. Although the other individuals accepted Colonel Nelson's settlement proposal, Mr. Hanners rejected the proposed resolution. Mr. Hanners elected to appear before the Board and read from a prepared statement. Following his appearance before the Board, the Deputy Directors unanimously recommended to Director Trent that Mr. Hanners receive the original thirty-day suspension. They expressed concern regarding Mr. Hanners's apparent lack of remorse. Director Trent accepted the Board's recommendation and imposed a thirty-day suspension.5
3. Ratings Session and Promotions
As part of the ISP employee promotion process, each sworn employee receives an annual promotional rating, which is given by the employee's direct supervisor. 6 During the 2008 ratings session, approximately thirty individuals, including Mr. Hanners, were to be considered for promotion from master sergeant to lieutenant. Lieutenant Anderson–Martin was Mr. Hanners's rater for 2008. Following the usual protocol, she met with Mr. Hanners to go over the components of the ratings process. She then scored Mr. Hanners on a scale of 1 to 9 in nine different categories and preliminarily calculated his aggregate score as 68. Prior to the ratings session,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starks v. City of Waukegan
...non-movant, so the following facts are set forth as favorably to him as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit. See Hanners v. Trent, 674 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2012) ; In re United Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 463, 468 (7th Cir.2006). Wherever possible, the court will cite Starks's Local Rule ......
-
Jones v. Nat'l Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of U.S.
...On a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, see Hanners v. Trent, 674 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2012) (citing Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep't, 578 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir.2009) ), and “gives [the plaintiffs] the benefit ......
-
Murillo v. United States
...undisputed facts are set forth as favorably to Plaintiff, the non-movant, as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit. Hanners v. Trent , 674 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir. 2012). On summary judgment, the Court assumes the truth of those facts, but does not vouch for them. Arroyo v. Volvo Grp. N. Am.......
-
Thorncreek Apartments Iii, LLC v. Vill. of Park Forest, an Ill. Mun. Corp.
...the following sets forth the material facts as favorably to Thorncreek as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit. SeeHanners v. Trent, 674 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2012); Mays v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2013 WL 4804839, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 9, 2013). That the court at this juncture must assume the trut......
-
Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
...or systematic deviations from established policies or practices’ can be probative of discriminatory intent.”) quoting Hanners v. Trent , 674 F.3d 683, 694 (7th Cir. 2012). See also Giacoletto v. Amax Zinc Co., Inc ., 954 F.2d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1992) (affirming jury verdict in favor of plai......