Harden v. Marion County Sheriff's Department
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15017
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Harden, a Marion County sheriff’s deputy (hired 2008), testified in an internal race-discrimination investigation regarding treatment of African-American deputies; outcomes included demotions of the accused supervisors.
- After his EEOC-related interview, Harden alleges he suffered adverse treatment: reduced patrol time, removal from a mayoral assignment, and repeated push from supervisors to write him up.
- Harden filed an EEOC complaint; harassment purportedly stopped after he provided a statement to an outside investigator.
- Months later an arrestee (Rybolt) alleged $100 missing; a criminal investigation cleared Harden but an Internal Affairs probe concluded Harden took the money and recommended termination.
- Harden was fired (Dec. 2010), sued for Title VII retaliation, and the district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Department; Harden appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harden showed causation for Title VII retaliation under the direct method | Harden argues timing, earlier harassment, supervisor comments, and selective investigation create a convincing mosaic linking his protected activity to termination | Dept. contends termination rested on a legitimate Internal Affairs finding that Harden stole money; any harassment was unrelated and not linked to termination | Court held Harden failed to show causal link; summary judgment for Dept. affirmed |
| Whether Internal Affairs investigation was pretextual | Harden contends IA report was sham/selective, omitted alternative suspect (Rybolt’s initial accusation), and had weaknesses vs. criminal probe | Dept. argues IA investigation was thorough, interviewed all 14 witnesses, reviewed footage/radio, and gave plausible reasons for concluding Harden was responsible | Court held IA was not a sham; its thoroughness and plausible reasoning defeated pretext claim |
| Admissibility of Rybolt’s statement accusing another officer (hearsay) | Harden argued the statement showed notice of another suspect and was not offered for truth | Dept. urged it was inadmissible hearsay | Court found district court erroneously excluded it as hearsay but any error was harmless because summary judgment would stand even if admissible |
| Whether procedural forfeiture bars claim about missing IA interview transcripts | Harden raised at oral argument that transcripts weren’t produced | Dept. noted no motion to compel or earlier briefing on this point | Court treated the contention as forfeited and assumed transcripts were produced and consistent with IA report |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (standards for direct and indirect proof of retaliation)
- Ripberger v. Corizon, Inc., 773 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment review standard)
- Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2009) (inadmissible hearsay cannot oppose summary judgment)
- Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land & Water Co., 518 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2008) (statements offered to show notice are not hearsay)
- Hobgood v. Ill. Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2013) (convincing-mosaic approach to circumstantial evidence)
- Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (pretext requires more than mistaken judgment)
- Harper v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2012) (identifying weaknesses required to show an employer didn’t honestly believe its reason)
- Hall v. Bodine Elec. Co., 276 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2002) (misrepresenting witness statements in an investigative report can support pretext)
- Lesch v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2002) (court may proceed to pretext when prima facie issues need not be reached)
- Baker v. Macon Resources, Inc., 750 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014) (selective investigation/enforcement can show pretext, when comparators and investigative conduct support it)
- Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr., 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010) (cursory or unusual investigation and shifting justifications support insincerity finding)
- Veluchamy v. FDIC, 706 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2013) (arguments raised first at oral argument are forfeited)