Brigid Ford v. Marion County Sheriff's Offic
942 F.3d 839
7th Cir.2019Background
- Brigid Ford, a Marion County deputy, suffered a severe hand injury in 2012 and could not return to her deputy duties; the Sheriff’s Office placed her on light duty and ultimately offered reassignment to a civilian Visitation Clerk position (a pay-cut demotion) after a June 2013 “three choices” meeting.
- Ford requested accommodations (hands-free phone, ergonomic station, breaks, voice software); most were granted except voice-activated software. She accepted the Visitation Clerk post in October 2013.
- Ford complained repeatedly (emails/memos) of harassment by co-workers Carol Ladd and Eva Watts (Oct 2013–Dec 2014); the Sheriff’s Office transferred Ladd and Watts out of the unit in late 2014/early 2015.
- Vashni Hendricks later worked with Ford (Jan 2015–July 2016); Ford alleged additional disability-based harassment but did not notify supervisors that the conduct was disability-related until June 2016; Hendricks was transferred after that complaint.
- The Sheriff’s Office changed Ford to a rotating schedule (Jan 2015); Ford sought a fixed schedule as an accommodation and presented medical support. The district court denied some claims on summary judgment, tried two claims (hostile work environment for Ladd/Watts and schedule accommodation), and the jury returned defense verdicts; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court improperly split a single hostile-work-environment claim (Ladd/Watts vs. Hendricks) | Ford: harassment formed a single, continuous hostile environment; splitting was improper under Morgan | Sheriff: incidents were separate practices (time gap, change in supervisors, intervening remedial action) | Affirmed separation; distinct practices due to 18‑month gap, supervisory change, and transfer of Ladd/Watts |
| Whether reassignment/demotion to Visitation Clerk was an unreasonable accommodation and thus discriminatory/retaliatory | Ford: better, equivalent vacancies existed and the interactive process was inadequate | Sheriff: reassignment was a permissible reasonable accommodation when no equivalent vacant position existed | Summary judgment for Sheriff; Ford failed to show a vacant, equivalent position existed |
| Whether Hendricks’s conduct created a hostile work environment and employer liability | Ford: Hendricks’s repeated comments and conduct were disability-based and employer was negligent | Sheriff: incidents were isolated/offhand; employer had no notice of disability-based harassment until June 2016 and then acted promptly | Summary judgment for Sheriff; comments were not sufficiently severe/pervasive and employer acted promptly upon notice |
| Whether denial of four promotions (Mar 2016–Feb 2017) were discriminatory or retaliatory | Ford: rejections were motivated by disability and retaliation for protected activity | Sheriff: each decision had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (discipline/attendance/skills/better candidates) | Summary judgment for Sheriff; Ford offered insufficient comparative evidence and did not rebut nondiscriminatory reasons |
| Whether trial rulings (exclusion of pre‑October‑2013 background evidence and Jury Instruction No. 20) require a new trial | Ford: exclusion and instruction prejudiced jury and hid context | Sheriff: rulings were within court’s discretion and instruction stated correct law | No reversible error; court reasonably limited extraneous background evidence and Instruction 20 was correct and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile-environment claims are a single unlawful employment practice but acts with "no relation" may be separate)
- Isaacs v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., 485 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2007) (continuous harassment across teams cannot be split into separate practices)
- Bright v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., 510 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2007) (evidence of prior harassment may be relevant to hostile-environment claims; employer cannot segment workplace into separate practices)
- Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp., 154 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 1998) (employer must consider reassignment to vacant positions as reasonable accommodation)
- Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2000) (demotion can be a reasonable accommodation)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (vicarious employer liability for supervisor harassment and affirmative defense framework)
- Saxton v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 10 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 1993) (transfer of harasser can defeat employer liability when it reasonably prevents recurrence)