Silva v. State, 917 F.3d 546

Background

Julio de Lima Silva, a Brazilian citizen who identifies as Latino, was a correctional sergeant in Wisconsin's Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP); he was the only nonwhite security staff member at his facility in 2014.
On June 23, 2014 Silva decentralized inmate Fernando Haro after Haro allegedly ignored multiple orders and gave a "target glance"; Haro was not injured and Silva kept him on the ground for about two minutes until he calmed.
The DOC conducted a personnel investigation and an independent Use of Force Review; investigators recommended potential violations of Work Rules #2 (policy noncompliance), #6 (falsification), and #11 (threat/inflict harm); Use of Force reviewers concluded Silva used unreasonable force.
White coworker Terry Korte had used force a month earlier (pushing an inmate into a wall and grabbing his head); investigators found Korte violated Work Rules #2, #4, and #11 but Korte received only a one-day suspension and was not charged with falsification.
Warden Quala Champagne, after IRT/DART/MAT review, discharged Silva for violations including excessive force and falsification; Silva appealed to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), which ordered reinstatement, finding insufficient evidence of Rules #6 and #11 violations and criticizing DOC's inconsistent treatment and delay.
Silva sued in federal court (Title VII against DOC; §1983 equal protection against DOC and individuals; §1981). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: reversed summary judgment on Silva's Title VII claim against DOC and on the §1983 equal protection claim against Champagne; affirmed other grants of summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Silva can show discriminatory treatment by comparing his discipline to Korte's	Silva: Korte's and Silva's uses of force were comparably serious; differing punishments support inference of race/national-origin discrimination	DOC: Korte's misconduct was not comparable; Silva's use-of-force review and alleged untruthfulness justified harsher discipline	Held: A reasonable jury could find the misconduct comparably serious; Korte is a permissible comparator
Whether defendants' nondiscriminatory reasons (excessive force, falsification, multiple reviewers) were pretextual	Silva: Champagne's explanations shifted over time and rested on incorrect factual premises; inconsistent treatment (esp. re: falsification) suggests pretext	DOC: Decision supported by investigation, video, and multiple reviewers; reasons honestly believed	Held: Silva raised triable issues of pretext (shifting explanations, factual errors, inconsistent discipline) — summary judgment reversed as to Title VII (DOC) and §1983 (Champagne)
Whether WERC findings preclude DOC from arguing justification (issue preclusion)	Silva: WERC's findings that DOC was not substantially justified should preclude relitigation	DOC: WERC context is different; Champagne was not an adversary; preclusion would be unfair	Held: Issue preclusion does not apply (different forum, issues, and fairness concerns)
Whether Champagne is entitled to qualified immunity on §1983 claim	Silva: If jury finds discriminatory motive, the law clearly prohibits firing based on race/national origin	Champagne: No clearly established law would have put her on notice given facts	Held: Qualified immunity denied at summary judgment stage — terminating an employee for race/national origin is clearly established law

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (comparator analysis focuses on misconduct similarity and disciplining supervisor)
Peirick v. Ind. Univ.-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis Athletics Dep't, 510 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2007) (critical inquiry is whether conduct is of comparable seriousness)
Smith v. Chicago Transit Authority, 806 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2015) (pretext shown by employer's implausible or unworthy-of-credence explanations)
Castro v. DeVry Univ., Inc., 786 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2015) (shifting or inconsistent employer explanations support an inference of pretext)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity two-step: violation and clearly established right)
Lauderdale v. Illinois Dep't of Human Servs., 876 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2017) (Title VII and equal protection analyses overlap for race/national-origin claims)
O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (§1981 discrimination and relation to §1983 remedies)
Carmody v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, 893 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2018) (personal involvement required for §1983 liability)