Bello v. Village of Skokie
151 F. Supp. 3d 849
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Bello, a Skokie police officer and USMC reservist, sues Skokie, police officials, and Village personnel alleging USERRA discrimination (count 1) and retaliation (count 2), plus IWA retaliation (count 3) and IMLOAA violations (count 4).
- Discovery completed; both sides moved for summary judgment; court grants summary judgment on IMLOAA (count 4) and on USERRA discrimination against Krupnik, but denies others.
- The Village’s policy requires RDOs for officers and allows military leave; after 2013 the Village restricted military leave in favor of RDOs, affecting Bello.
- Bello’s conduct included roll-call “kill” phrases; Krupnik ordered Bello to stop, later lied about the motive; Bello was suspended after disciplinary process.
- Bello pursued internal grievance and EAP/FFD processes; court examines whether actions (counseling, evaluation, desk duty, suspension) constitute retaliation under USERRA and IWA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| USERRA discrimination against village vs. Bello | Bello treated differently due to military status | No adverse discrimination; policy applied equally | Disputed; Krupnik granted summary judgment on count 1 |
| USERRA retaliation by Bello after enforcing rights | Actions (counseling, FFD, desk duty) show retaliation | Only unpaid suspension is actionable; pretext not shown | Genuine dispute exists; summary judgment denied for Bello on retaliation claims (counts 2) (as to village, Ballowe, Scarpelli, Lopez) |
| IWA retaliation for whistleblowing | Actions tied to protected activity; comparator evidence shows motive | No causal link established; legitimate reasons or pretext | Genuine dispute; IWA retaliation claim survived against individual defendants (count 3) |
| IMLOAA claim viability | Village must pay difference when military leave is taken | IMLOAA not triggered for routine drill days; no paid leave required when pay is zero | Summary judgment for defendants; count 4 dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 567 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2009) (USERRA retaliation standard; material adversity required)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse action is objective and context-specific)
- Cole v. State of Illinois, 562 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2009) (retaliation standard; material adversity not every unhappy act)
- McMahon v. Salmond, 573 F. App’x 128 (3d Cir. 2014) (retaliation proof burden-shifting applied to USERRA)