Ellis v. CCA OF TENNESSEE LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11577

Plaintiffs Harriett Ellis, Patricia Forrest, Shavon Jones, and Delores McNeil are African-American nurses who worked in the Marion County Jail health care unit operated by CCA under contract with the Marion County Sheriff.
They alleged race discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and a state-law whistleblower retaliation claim for complaining about jail practices.
The district court granted summary judgment for CCA on the federal discrimination and state-law whistleblower claims; Forrest’s claim was addressed under claim preclusion.
In early 2005, CCA changed the staffing policy to rotate nurses across day, evening, and night shifts to reduce inter-shift tension, applying the policy to all nurses.
In 2006, incidents included a management book excerpt about “monkeys” used to describe workplace problems, confederate-flag insignia worn by staff, and a doctor’s offensive remark about an inmate named Cole; plaintiffs argued these supported hostile-work-environment claims.
Plaintiffs resigned beginning September 2006, and sued, asserting multiple claims; Forrest’s prior federal suit was argued to have precluded her later claims, which the district court and the Seventh Circuit discussed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hostile-work-environment claim is actionable	Ellis/Forrest argue events like monkey book excerpts and confederate symbols create a hostile environment.	The incidents are either not sufficiently severe or not sufficiently tied to race to be actionable.	No jury issue; environment not objectively hostile; incidents insufficiently severe.
Whether race-based discrete acts support an indirect discrimination claim	Disparate treatment evidenced by the 2005 shift policy, suspension, and other actions show adverse effects tied to race.	No material adverse action or pretext; employer treated all employees alike for similar conduct.	No material adverse action or pretext shown; discrimination claims fail.
Whether the Indiana whistleblower Act supports the claims	CCAs retaliatory actions violated the Act for reporting safety concerns.	Plaintiffs failed to point to a vi violation of law or applicable written complaint obligations under the Act.	Summary judgment for CCA; no violation of the Act established.
Whether Forrest's second suit was precluded by claim preclusion	Forrest's claims should not be barred to the extent they relate to post-complaint events.	Previous ruling should preclude some claims as res judicata.	District court erred on claim preclusion in Forrest’s case, but error was harmless overall.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (establishes objective and subjective hostility standards for hostile environment)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (employer liability for supervisory harassment under vicarious liability framework)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Grube v. Lau Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2001) (adverse action standard in the Seventh Circuit for retaliation claims)
Peters v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 307 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2002) (quantifies sufficiency of hostile environment claims; isolated incidents may be insufficient)
Coolidge v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 505 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2007) (brief and not particularly severe exposure may not create hostile environment)
Lapka v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2008) (assaults in the workplace may create an objectively hostile environment)