Terrance McKinney v. Sheriff's Office of Whitley Co
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14546
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Terrance McKinney, Whitley County’s first Black merit deputy, was hired in Aug. 2013 with a one-year probationary period and fired nine months later in May 2014.
- Sheriff Hodges’ original termination letter listed three reasons (falsified Academy hours, missing monthly report, improper use of county gas card); the County Commissioners later added two reasons (vehicle damage, failure to complete a transport); after suit the employer added three more.
- McKinney presented documentary and testimonial evidence (emails, timesheets, gas receipts, transport records, SOPs, deposition testimony) contradicting each rationale and showing racial comments, social ostracism, and failure to train him.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Office, finding no direct evidence of discrimination, rejecting much of McKinney’s submitted record as noncompliant with local rules or "self‑serving," and invoking the "common actor" inference (same person hired and fired).
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that McKinney’s evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to him—could permit a reasonable factfinder to infer race discrimination and that the district court abused its discretion in largely disregarding his evidence and misstating legal principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence (direct or circumstantial) to let a jury decide if race caused the firing | McKinney: racial slurs, ostracism, lack of training, and multiple documentary contradictions to employer reasons permit inference of discrimination | Sheriff: no direct evidence; offered nondiscriminatory reasons for termination; relied on Hodges’ affidavit | Court: Evidence could permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude race caused discharge; reversed summary judgment and remanded |
| Prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas (did McKinney meet legitimate expectations/similarly situated comparison) | McKinney: objective evidence shows he met expectations and that non‑Black colleagues were treated more favorably | Sheriff: McKinney failed to meet expectations; reliance on affidavit listing infractions | Court: McKinney presented sufficient objective evidence to establish a prima facie case |
| Pretext — credibility and proliferation of employer reasons for firing | McKinney: employer offered shifting, inconsistent, and factually refuted reasons (showing falsity and pretext) | Sheriff: articulated legitimate reasons; affidavit supports those reasons | Court: Employer’s changing and contradicted rationales, together with McKinney’s evidence, permit an inference of pretext and discrimination |
| Procedural/evidentiary rulings below (refusal to consider filings; discounting "self‑serving" testimony; weight of "common actor" inference) | McKinney: complied with local rule; provided specific citations and admissible evidence; testimony is admissible at summary judgment | Sheriff/District Ct: plaintiff failed to guide court through record; self‑serving affidavits insufficient; same‑actor inference weighs against discrimination | Court: District court abused discretion in largely disregarding properly submitted evidence and wrongly discounted self‑serving testimony; common‑actor inference is for the jury, not dispositive at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (direct/indirect methods evaluated under one inquiry: whether evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to find discrimination)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (pretext permits inference of discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (false employer explanation may permit inference of discrimination)
- Perez v. Thorntons, Inc., 731 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2013) (common/same‑actor inference is for the jury and not a conclusive presumption)
- Widmar v. Sun Chemical Corp., 772 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2014) (self‑serving affidavits can defeat summary judgment)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (description of McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting and prima facie elements)