KINDER v. MARION COUNTY PROSECUTER'S OFFICE
1:24-cv-00856
S.D. Ind.Jun 2, 2025Background
- Susan Kinder was employed by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) in Indiana, working in roles including victim advocate and receptionist.
- In 2021, Kinder was reassigned from her victim advocate duties to a receptionist position, which she alleges was discriminatory and retaliatory.
- Following her reassignment, she was denied assignments related to victim advocacy, required to perform menial tasks, and later denied a promotion and received a verbal warning.
- Kinder initially filed a lawsuit (Kinder I) alleging discrimination and retaliation, which resulted in summary judgment against her; that judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- Kinder subsequently filed a new suit asserting similar retaliation claims, including new Section 1981 claims against MCPO and Celita Scott (her supervisor), Title VII claims against Scott, and Title VII retaliation claims against the MCPO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 1981 claims against MCPO and Scott | MCPO and Scott violated § 1981 by discriminating against Kinder | Claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; § 1981 claims can't be brought against state actors | Dismissed; barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Title VII claims against Scott individually | Scott should be liable under Title VII for her actions | Title VII does not permit individual liability for supervisors | Dismissed; Scott not a proper defendant under Title VII |
| Retaliation claim against MCPO (diminished duties) | MCPO retaliated by diminishing Kinder's job duties | Claim already litigated in Kinder I; barred by res judicata | Dismissed; barred by res judicata |
| Retaliation claims (denied promotion, verbal warning) | MCPO's denial of promotion and verbal warning were retaliation | Not barred; these are new events after the original lawsuit | Survive; not dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 1995) (supervisors are not individually liable under Title VII)
- Scott v. O'Grady, 975 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1992) (Eleventh Amendment bars certain suits against state agencies)
- La Preferida, Inc. v. Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V., 914 F.2d 900 (7th Cir. 1990) (explains the elements of res judicata)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires claim to be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must allow reasonable inference of liability for misconduct)