Roberto Alamo v. Charlie Bliss
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13094
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Roberto Alamo, a Chicago firefighter since 2006, alleges repeated national-origin harassment (epithets like “spic” and “f--king Puerto Rican”), theft/disposing of his food, and two physical assaults by coworkers between 2009 and Sept. 2011.
- Alamo repeatedly complained to Lieutenant Bliss and Battalion Chief Annis; he alleges supervisors failed to correct the harassment. One assault (Sept. 2011) involved Captain Stefan and was witnessed by Bliss; Chief Chickorotis allegedly discouraged Alamo from pressing charges and later became hostile when Alamo sought departmental redress.
- After the Sept. 2011 assault Alamo took medical leave recommended by physicians; the Fire Department’s Medical Section then imposed a series of additional documentation and testing requirements before clearing him to return.
- Alamo alleges the return-to-work process was piecemeal and unusually onerous compared with non-Latino firefighters, resulting in his pay and benefits being stopped for a period in July 2012; he was later reinstated.
- Procedural posture: Alamo’s third amended complaint asserted Title VII claims (hostile work environment, disparate treatment, retaliation), a § 1983 hostile-work-environment claim against Bliss, an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, and state tort claims. The district court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice; the Seventh Circuit reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (Title VII & § 1983) | Alamo says pervasive verbal slurs, theft of food, and two physical assaults over ~2 years, plus supervisors’ inaction, altered terms/conditions of employment. | Defendants argued incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to meet Title VII standard. | Reversed: complaint plausibly alleges severe and/or pervasive harassment (racial slurs, physical threats/assaults, living/working interdependence in firehouse, supervisors’ failure to act). |
| Disparate treatment (Title VII) | Excessive "detailing" to undesirable posts and the piecemeal, onerous medical-clearance process (unique hurdles) targeted Alamo because of national origin; loss of pay/benefits is adverse action. | City contended detailing and medical delays are not materially adverse; any actions were job-related and nondiscriminatory. | Reversed: allegations plausibly show adverse actions (marginalizing detailing; loss of salary/benefits) and infer discriminatory intent when viewed with other allegations. |
| Retaliation (Title VII) | Filing/attempting to file police report and complaining to supervisors were protected activity; subsequent onerous medical process and withholding pay were retaliatory. | City argued timing and delay undercut causation; process could be legitimate medical inquiry. | Reversed: protected activity, adverse action (loss of pay), and plausible causal link (Chief’s conduct and timing given Alamo was on leave) survive dismissal. |
| Employer liability for coworker/supervisor conduct | Alamo contends City liable because supervisors knew or were negligent in remedying harassment (reports to Bliss and Chief). | City suggested some actors were not direct supervisors and challenged employer liability. | Reversed as to employer liability at pleading stage: complaint sufficiently alleges notice and employer failure to remediate to permit claim to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile-work-environment standard; severity/pervasiveness factors)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Title VII covers hostile work environment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading threshold for plausibility)
- Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge, 804 F.3d 826 (elements for Title VII and parallel § 1983 hostile-environment claims)
- Cerros v. Steel Techs., Inc., 398 F.3d 944 (severity/pervasiveness analysis; severe single incidents vs. repeated lesser acts)
- Herrnreiter v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 315 F.3d 742 (examples of adverse employment action, including diminished compensation)
- Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629 (unique adverse actions tailored to job context)
- Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819 (employer notice and investigation expectations in discrimination contexts)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (scope of Title VII anti-retaliation protection)