Rasul Freelain v. Village of Oak Park
888 F.3d 895
7th Cir.2018Background
- Rasul Freelain, Oak Park police officer, alleged sexual harassment by Sergeant Dina Vardal in 2012 and filed an internal complaint after unwelcome advances and a physical shove.
- After filing, Freelain developed stress-related medical symptoms (migraines, sleeplessness) and took intermittent medical/FMLA leave in Aug–Sept 2012 and later while awaiting fitness-for-duty clearance.
- The village’s outside investigator closed the harassment investigation as unsubstantiated; Freelain learned the result only when he returned to work.
- Chief Tanksley required Freelain to pass a psychological (fitness-for-duty) exam before returning; clearance took about seven weeks and the village initially classified much of his absence as charged to paid sick leave.
- The village later reclassified some leave as administrative and restored pay/leave, but adjustments were delayed; Freelain also experienced a three-month delay in approval of secondary employment.
- Freelain sued under the FMLA and ADA asserting retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the village and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave misclassifications were materially adverse (retaliation) | Misclassification ("self-sick" vs "sick accident"/administrative) drained paid leave and left him with no sick time when his wife became ill | Employer lawfully applied leave rules; FMLA allows employers to count paid leave against FMLA and to place employees on unpaid leave; village later remedied monetary effects | Not materially adverse — consistent with FMLA/ADA; bureaucratic delay, not bad faith; eventual make-whole defeats claim |
| Whether requiring a psychological fitness-for-duty exam was retaliatory | Forcing the exam delayed return and stigmatized him; evidence of chief's biased comments | Fitness-for-duty exam is routine and justified for public-safety personnel after stress/absences; no evidence he was singled out | Not materially adverse — reasonable and ordinary safety measure; no evidence of singling out or unlawful purpose |
| Whether delay in approving secondary employment was retaliatory | Three-month delay, slower than some colleagues, harmed opportunities and was motivated by retaliation | Approval timing is discretionary and varied among officers; no policy showing inconsistency or targeting | Not materially adverse — discretionary, uneven process but no proof of targeted slow-walking |
| Whether the acts, taken together, would dissuade a reasonable employee from exercising FMLA/ADA rights | Cumulative burdens (lost leave, delays, exam) would chill protected activity | Actions fall within employer discretion and FMLA’s allowance for unpaid leave; no evidence of deviation from policies or malicious intent | No. A reasonable employee should not be dissuaded; absence of policy deviations or bad faith is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (clarifies objective materially adverse standard for retaliation)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (limitations on FMLA-related regulations and employer rights to run leave concurrently)
- Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507 (upholding fitness-for-duty evaluations for police officers)
- Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 578 F.3d 559 (permitting psychological exams where public safety concerns exist)
- Pagel v. TIN, Inc., 695 F.3d 622 (elements of retaliation claims under employment statutes)
- Washington v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 420 F.3d 658 (accounting for plaintiff’s personal circumstances in adverse-action analysis)
- Silk v. City of Chicago, 194 F.3d 788 (secondary-employment restrictions and evidence of inconsistent application)