Jerome Cole v. Board of Trustees of Northern
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17560
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jerome Cole, an African‑American Building Services foreman/sub‑foreman at Northern Illinois University since 1998, alleged race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment beginning in 2009. He was the only African‑American foreman/sub‑foreman in the department.
- Cole identified a series of workplace incidents (unauthorized key accusations, disputed supply orders, alleged surveillance, a break‑in of his office, and other personnel irregularities) and filed an ethics complaint in August 2012 reporting those issues.
- In November 2012 Cole discovered a hangman’s noose in his new workspace and a second noose the next day; he reported the matter to coworkers and the university police. The police investigated but the matter was never resolved and the noose was lost.
- In late 2012 Cole was placed on the hiring register and returned to a sub‑foreman position (assumed a demotion for summary judgment), with a white colleague (Ruth Stone) treated the same way. He later received two written disciplinary actions in 2013.
- Cole sued the university board and individual employees under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection), alleging hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (noose) | The noose and department conduct created a racially hostile workplace and employer failed to take corrective action. | The noose was reported to police, Cole downplayed offense, and employer reasonably left investigation to police—no negligent failure to remedy. | Affirmed: no employer liability because steps taken (police investigation) were reasonable under the circumstances. |
| Disparate treatment (demotion/discipline) | Demotion and adverse actions were motivated by race; Cole’s unique negative experiences show worse treatment. | Demotion was remedial/neutral (procedural irregularities) and Cole was demoted identically to a white comparator. No direct or circumstantial evidence of racial motive. | Affirmed: no direct or circumstantial evidence of race‑based motive; similarly situated comparator treated the same. |
| Retaliation (after ethics complaint) | Employer retaliated after Cole’s August 2012 ethics complaint. | Cole’s ethics complaint did not complain of race discrimination and thus was not protected activity under Title VII. | Affirmed: complaint did not allege discrimination based on a protected characteristic, so no protected activity. |
| § 1983 individual liability | Individual defendants responsible for constitutional violations. | Except for Nicklas, individuals lacked personal involvement; Nicklas’s actions mirrored Title VII conclusions. | Affirmed: no § 1983 liability—most defendants not personally involved; Nicklas’s claim fails for same reasons as Title VII claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (establishes hostile work environment legal standard under Title VII)
- Porter v. Erie Foods Int’l, Inc., 576 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2009) (framework for evaluating employer liability and severity/pervasiveness in hostile environment claims)
- Williams v. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., 361 F.3d 1021 (7th Cir. 2004) (supervisor strict liability and employer negligence standard for coworker harassment)
- Zayas v. Rockford Memorial Hospital, 740 F.3d 1154 (7th Cir. 2014) (requirement that harassment be tied to protected class, not merely workplace unfairness)
- Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., 411 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2005) (same; caution against attributing every workplace grievance to discriminatory motivation)
- Lapka v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2008) (single severe incident can be actionable under hostile work environment analysis)