Scaife v. Cook County

• Citation: 446 F.3d 735
• Decision Date: 10 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04-2966.,04-2966.
• Parties: Samuel SCAIFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY, Michael F. Sheahan, Randy Pietrowski, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

446 F.3d 735

Samuel SCAIFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY, Michael F. Sheahan, Randy Pietrowski, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-2966.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued December 5, 2005.

Decided May 10, 2006.

Charmaine E. Dwyer (argued), Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gregory Vaci (argued), Office of the Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before POSNER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Thirteen employees of the Cook County Sheriff's Department, including Samuel Scaife, sued Cook County, Sheriff Michael Sheahan, and several Department supervisors including William Wallace (the "defendants") alleging numerous violations of federal law. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Only Scaife appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. HISTORY

Samuel Scaife, an African-American male, has been employed by the Cook County Sheriff's Department since June 1, 1988. Scaife began as a correctional officer and in 1990 became an investigator in the Department's electronic monitoring unit. In 1994, Scaife was promoted to supervisor, and, after returning from injury leave, was permanently placed in the permissions section of the electronic monitoring unit.

On March 18, 1999, Scaife signed Grievance No. 99-003 along with several co-workers (who were plaintiffs in the proceedings below but did not appeal). The grievance alleged "that only particular people are allowed to leave early. All investigators should be allowed to leave early or All made to stay until the end of their 8-hour shift. The permission office was told that if we complained, that `you know what's going to happen to you.' We took that as intimidation." (emphasis in original). On March 31, a threatening note left on Scaife's desk stated, "Your [sic] next Inv. Scaife." Scaife requested an internal investigation of the incident. Chief Randy Pietrowski conducted an investigation and on April 19, found the allegations to be inconclusive based on the lack of supporting evidence.

On May 30, Scaife and three others were transferred to patrol from the permissions unit where they were placed on a six-and-two schedule (six consecutive working days followed by two days off). Scaife, who had been working a five-and-two schedule (Monday through Friday with weekends off), did not request the transfer. On August 10, Scaife filed Grievance No. 99-012, alleging that he was transferred against his will, and that he had been harassed for being an African-American single parent. The grievance also alleged that Scaife had not been informed of open job posts for which he otherwise could have applied. This grievance was "granted" on November 4.¹

Scaife allegedly arrived late to work on September 7, 1999, resulting in a recommended suspension of three days. Scaife filed a grievance.² After Scaife failed to attend the grievance hearing on October 14, the three-day suspension was imposed. Scaife subsequently was written up for arriving late to work on October 17, this time incurring a recommended suspension of 29 days. Again Scaife filed a grievance (No. 99-023) and again did not attend the hearing. On December 3, executive director William Wallace, citing Scaife's absence from the grievance hearing scheduled for that day, imposed the recommended 29-day suspension in full.

On November 16, deputy director Michael Ricci notified Department personnel that the electronic monitoring unit would be reorganized. Under the plan, the permissions section would be combined with another section to form a new detainee management unit. The new unit would employ a six-and-two standard schedule, with preferences given according to seniority. Personnel in the unit would also have patrol duties on weekends. On November 19, Ricci gave notice that the reorganization would be effective November 21. Apparently the effect of the reorganization was to put Scaife on a six-and-two schedule, only a few weeks after his grievance (No. 99-012) was granted which presumably gave him weekends off. The next day, Scaife requested a transfer from patrol to the records unit with Saturdays and Sundays off, and his request was granted November 28.

On November 30, Scaife filed a charge before the Illinois Labor Relations Board ("Labor Board") alleging that the redeployment of November 19 violated state law and seeking enforcement of Grievance No. 99-012. In October 2001, Scaife prevailed before the Labor Board, which affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award of damages and recommendation that Scaife's Grievance No. 99-012 be granted. Pursuant to the Labor Board's order, on February 2, 2002, Scaife was reassigned to the detainee management unit with weekends off.

Scaife filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on September 18, 2001, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation for filing a union grievance. On December 14, 2001, Scaife and several others filed a complaint in federal court. The district court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint several times. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint, which contained eleven counts, of which Scaife alleged seven.

Specifically, Scaife joined Count I (42 U.S.C. § 1981 race discrimination and retaliation); Count II (42 U.S.C. § 1983 equal protection claims based on race); Count III (Title VII race discrimination); Count VI (42 U.S.C. § 1983 first amendment retaliation); Count VII (Title VII retaliation claims naming only Cook County and Sheahan officially); Count IX (29 U.S.C. § 157 et seq. unfair labor practices); and Count X (29 U.S.C. § 207 unfair wage and hour claims)³. The district court dismissed Count IX pursuant to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The portion of the complaint relating solely to Scaife included numerous allegations regarding his scheduling, transfers, grievances, and suspensions.

The defendants moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss with prejudice all of the remaining claims, including Scaife's. The defendants' Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts and supporting materials referred to Scaife's transfers and filing of grievances but not the suspensions. The defendants argued, inter alia, that Scaife had suffered no adverse action. In his response, Scaife pointed to his suspensions as instances of adverse action. On June 28, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. In its opinion, the court noted that the defendants did not address the suspensions but concluded in any event that Scaife could not meet his prima facie burden for discrimination and retaliation.

The scope of Scaife's appeal is limited to the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Michael Sheahan in his official capacity as Cook County Sheriff, Cook County, and William Wallace in his individual capacity, and only for the claims of discrimination and retaliation insofar as they relate to the suspensions.

II. ANALYSIS

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Scaife, the nonmoving party. Volovsek v. Wis. Dep't of Agric., Trade & Consumer Prot., 344 F.3d 680, 686 (7th Cir.2003) (citation omitted); Waggoner v. Olin Corp., 169 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). Initially, the burden of production is upon the moving party to identify "those portions of `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). "[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by `showing' — that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. "Once the moving party satisfies this burden, the nonmovant must `set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Vitug v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 88 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir.1996) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). If "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party," the nonmovant has not demonstrated a dispute of material fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citation omitted).

Discrimination may be proven either directly, such as by an admission by the defendant, or indirectly under the burden-shifting method established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Herron v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 388 F.3d 293, 299-302 (7th Cir.2004); Alexander v. Wis. Dep't of Health & Family Servs., 263 F.3d 673, 682 (7th Cir.2001). For his discrimination claim, Scaife makes no argument relating to the direct method, opting instead to proceed only under the indirect method. McDonnell Douglas places the initial burden on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, which is the same whether the claim is brought under Title VII or § 1981. See Cerutti v. BASF Corp., 349 F.3d 1055, 1060-61 n. 4 (7th Cir.2003) (citations omitted). A prima facie case of discrimination is established if the employee provides evidence that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was meeting his employer's legitimate expectations at the time of the alleged adverse action; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) the employer treated similarly situated employees not in the protected class more favorably. Herron, ...