45 N.E.3d 458
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Gaff worked as Lead Custodian IV at IPFW from 2002 to 2012; Itt joined Purdue as Custodian II in July 2012 and reported to Gaff.
- Itt filed a July 19, 2012 report alleging Gaff made threatening gestures and disparaging remarks; Gaff denied the claims and disputed Itt's allegations about his supervisor.
- Gaff received an oral reprimand on July 26, 2012 for improper floor maintenance; in November 2012 a surveillance-recorded confrontation with Itt led to termination on December 7, 2012 under IPFW's Violent Behavior Policy.
- Gaff grieved his termination under Purdue/IPFW grievance procedures; the Grievance Review Committee and IPFW Chancellor upheld the termination.
- Gaff filed a charge with the EEOC May 1, 2013 and received a right-to-sue notice August 28, 2013; he filed suit November 15, 2013 claiming federal and Indiana constitutional and Title VII violations.
- The trial court granted IPFW summary judgment on remaining claims; Gaff appeals challenging federal § 1983 claims, state constitutional claims, and Title VII retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal § 1983 claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity | Gaff argues IPFW violated federal constitutional rights and is not immune. | IPFW, as an arm of the state, is immune from § 1983 claims in this context. | Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 claims against IPFW. |
| Whether Indiana state constitutional claims may be pursued for monetary damages | Gaff alleges due course of law and equal privileges violations under Indiana Constitution. | No private right of action for monetary damages exists under Indiana Constitution. | No private monetary remedy under Indiana Constitution; trial court properly granted summary judgment. |
| Whether IPFW retaliated against Gaff under Title VII | Gaff asserts retaliation for protected activity under Title VII. | No statutorily protected activity established; no prima facie case. | Gaff failed to prove statutorily protected activity; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kashani v. Purdue Univ., 813 F.2d 848 (7th Cir. 1987) (IPFW as an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity)
- Shannon v. Bepko, 684 F. Supp. 1465 (S.D. Ind. 1988) (sovereign immunity under Eleventh Amendment applies)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1981) (§ 1983 and state immunity interplay)
- Ross v. Indiana State Bd. of Nursing, 790 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (Eleventh Amendment immunity framework in Indiana context)
- Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, 871 N.E.2d 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (no express or implied monetary right of action under Indiana Constitution)
- City of Indianapolis v. Cox, 20 N.E.3d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (no private right of action for monetary damages under Article 1, Section 23)
- Culver Educ. Found., 535 N.E.2d 112 (Ind. 1989) (title VII framework adopted for retaliation burden shifting)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (three-stage burden-shifting framework for retaliation cases)
- Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2012) (retaliation doctrine and evidentiary standards)
- Tomanovich v. City of Indianapolis, 457 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2006) (indirect method elements for Title VII retaliation)