Gordie Taylor v. Village of Dolton, Illinois, 17-1097

Gordie Taylor, a Black firefighter in Dolton, Illinois (2009–2013), alleges repeated racial slurs and statements by supervisors (Lieutenants David DuVall and Daniel Manning, and Chief Terrence Hughes) that Black firefighters “don’t belong.”
Taylor was repeatedly accused by supervisors of smelling like alcohol at work; he denied drinking and cited racial animus as motive for accusations.
After a later accusation by Manning, Chief Jerry McCullough ordered Taylor to “take a test for alcohol.” Taylor agreed to a breath test (negative) but refused a blood test; McCullough treated the refusal as insubordination and placed Taylor on administrative leave.
Chief Hughes (who succeeded McCullough) offered a three‑day suspension; Taylor refused and was fired for "insubordinate and threatening behavior." Taylor filed an EEOC charge one month later.
Taylor sued under Title VII for racially discriminatory discharge and hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The Seventh Circuit vacated summary judgment on discharge (material factual disputes) but affirmed dismissal of the hostile‑environment claim as untimely. Judge Rovner concurred in part and dissented as to timeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discriminatory discharge — causation/pretext	Taylor: evidence of racial animus by supervisors plus inconsistencies about the blood‑test order show insubordination reason is pretext for race‑based firing	Defendants: Taylor was fired for refusing a required blood test (insubordination); CBA required blood testing and preserving samples	Vacated summary judgment on discharge; genuine factual disputes about whether refusal was insubordinate and whether that reason was pretextual, so remand for trial
Hostile work environment — timeliness	Taylor: prior overt racial insults and later false misconduct accusations form a continuous, covert campaign; the cumulative claim falls within 300‑day limit if any act is timely	Defendants: last overt racial remarks occurred >300 days before EEOC charge; later misconduct accusations lacked racial character and thus cannot revive the claim	Affirmed dismissal of hostile‑environment claim as untimely (majority). Concurring judge would reverse and remand, finding covert racial purpose in later acts

Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (courts must evaluate discrimination evidence holistically rather than compartmentalizing)
EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2000) (standard of review on summary judgment in employment discrimination cases)
Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (identifying employer explanation weaknesses can show pretext)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile‑work‑environment claims timely if at least one act falls within charge period and acts are part of same practice)
Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (timeliness rule for hostile‑environment claims under Morgan)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2011) (harassment need not be explicitly racial but must have racial character or purpose)
Cole v. Bd. of Trustees of N. Ill. Univ., 838 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2016) (neutral‑appearing conduct can support hostile‑work‑environment claim if other evidence ties it to protected status)