Daza v. State
331 F. Supp. 3d 810
| S.D. Ind. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Peter Daza, a Hispanic/Native American man over 40, worked for INDOT from 1993 until his termination on December 10, 2015; he sued alleging discrimination (race, color, age, political affiliation) and retaliation.
- Key disciplinary events: a 2013 written reprimand for refusing an after-hours phone expectation; ongoing complaints from supervisors about his interpersonal conduct; and a December 2015 training incident where a trainer reported disengagement and a reported derogatory comment.
- Management discussed prior conduct, perceived abrasiveness, a respirator incident, premature notice of bonus nominations, and concluded repeated behavior warranted termination; the decisionmaker was INDOT DDC Russell Fowler.
- Daza filed administrative charges in December 2015 and sued in 2017; defendants moved for summary judgment and to strike portions of a surreply.
- The court limited consideration of the surreply to admissibility issues, excluded certain unauthenticated/hearsay items, and considered the core record showing termination for repeated insubordination/behavioral issues.
Issues
| Issue | Daza's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike portions of surreply | Surreply responds to defendants' evidentiary objections and to new arguments in defendants' reply | Portions go beyond admissibility and rehash arguments | Granted in part: Court considered only surreply portions addressing admissibility objections |
| Political‑affiliation discrimination (First Amendment) | Termination motivated by his and allies’ Democratic affiliation, his defense of a Democratic coworker, and his mother’s letter to the editor | No evidence decisionmaker knew of or was motivated by political activity; temporal gaps and speculation | Granted for defendants: summary judgment for lack of but‑for evidence linking protected activity to termination |
| Race/color discrimination (Title VII, §1981) | Trainer’s complaints and INDOT’s culture requirement were motivated by racial animus; disparate treatment | Complaints reflect observed conduct, not racial animus; decisionmaker relied on behavior, not race | Granted for defendants: no admissible evidence tying race/color to the termination or showing pretext |
| Age discrimination (ADEA) | Treated more harshly as older employee; younger/less qualified employees later filled duties | No similarly situated younger comparator; hiring chronology and facts do not show age motive | Granted for defendants: plaintiff failed to show younger comparators or pretext |
| Retaliation (statutory and constitutional) | Retaliation for complaining and filing EEOC; post‑charge failure to rehire/hiring replacements was retaliatory | Pre‑charge retaliation claims not exhausted; post‑charge theory unsupported by authority or evidence of causation | Granted for defendants: statutory claims not exhausted and no evidence that plaintiff’s protected activity caused adverse actions; constitutional retaliation likewise fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagan v. Quinn, 867 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2017) (public employees protected against patronage firings)
- Graber v. Clarke, 763 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2014) (timing of speech and adverse action insufficient without other linkage)
- Yahnke v. Kane County, 823 F.3d 1066 (7th Cir. 2016) (dismissal solely for lack of party affiliation violates First Amendment)
- Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2012) (but‑for causation requirement in First Amendment retaliation/discipline context)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (evidence considered as whole; abandons strict direct/indirect label sorting)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2001) (court assesses honesty of employer's explanation; not a super‑personnel review)
- Ferrill v. Oak Creek‑Franklin Joint School District, 860 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2017) (summary‑judgment inquiry asks whether evidence permits a reasonable jury to find prohibited factor caused adverse action)
- Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc., 788 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2015) (suspicious timing alone insufficient to establish causation)
- Baines v. Walgreen Co., 863 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2017) (post‑charge failure to rehire can support retaliation where record shows causal link)