Anthony Smith v. City of Janesville, 40 F.4th 816

Janesville PD created a “no-preference” tow list in June 2016 and solicited applications; four companies were initially published as the "final list."
Anthony Smith (Black), owner of Flying A.J.’s, submitted an application within the posted window; the Department initially said the application would be "placed on file," then inspected the facility and added Flying A.J.’s on July 12, 2016.
On July 25, 2016 Flying A.J.’s towed a vehicle after a crash; the tow driver allegedly did not speak to officers or the vehicle owner, took the car to Flying A.J.’s lot (instead of delivery that night), and left the owner without a ride. The owner later complained that a GPS was missing and said she felt threatened by a call from Smith.
Deputy Chief Holford investigated, sent multiple requests for Smith’s response (threatening suspension if none), received a delayed/rambling reply from Smith, and recommended suspension. Chief Moore removed Flying A.J.’s from the list for one year on August 29, 2016.
Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981 alleging race discrimination (delay and removal) and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Delay in adding Flying A.J.’s to the tow list	The Department published a “final list” before the application deadline and slowed or refused to consider Smith’s timely application due to race / prior complaints	The early publication and initial "placed on file" note had legitimate administrative explanations; Flying A.J.’s was added soon after inspection	No evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive; summary judgment affirmed
Removal from tow list (discrimination and retaliation)	Removal was motivated by Smith’s race and prior complaints; Don’s Towing (white-owned) allegedly received more lenient treatment for similar complaints	Removal was based on serious performance/customer-complaint issues (driver conduct, alleged missing GPS, threatening call), Smith’s poor and untimely responses, and nondiscriminatory enforcement; Don’s was not similarly situated	Comparator not adequate; legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons existed; no jury could reasonably infer discrimination/retaliation; summary judgment affirmed

Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment review standard in § 1983 cases)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for granting summary judgment; "no genuine issue" and "mere scintilla" guidance)
Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (causation is central in discrimination claims)
McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive, Inc., 940 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2019) (analysis of whether a comparator is similarly situated)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (purpose and approach of the "similarly situated" inquiry)