Gordie Taylor, firefighter formerly with Dolton Fire Department, asserts claims discriminatory discharge against Village Dolton several former supervisors. court granted defendants’ motion judgment. Because record shows factual dispute we affirm vacate part.

Taylor claims subjected to racially offensive language when worked Dolton Fire Department between and 2013. Two lieutenants in particular, David DuVall and Daniel Manning, used epithets and made derogatory to him DuVall, instance, repeatedly used word “nigger” and disparaged wife, white. In addition, Taylor claims separate occasions two lieutenants and Fire Chief Terrence Hughes said firefighters “don’t belong” in fire station. racially offensive comment early but Taylor did file an charge until February

During with fire department, Taylor repeatedly accused smelling alcohol while duty, though no one saw him drinking job. DuVall another lieutenant, Mike Moreno, were first to report him. Taylor denied drinking highlighted DuVall’s history harassment, suggesting made accusation animus. Jerry McCullough, Hughes’s predecessor fire chief, investigated both drinking allegations complaint harassment, process learned coworkers previously reported Taylor smelled alcohol.

A similar accusation later by another lieutenant, Daniel Manning. Taylor responded to allegation by asking McCullough to order alcohol test. McCullough so, preparing written order—as required under collective bargaining agreement with firefighters’ union—directing “take test alcohol,” though without specifying type test. Lieutenant then drove nearby hospital procedure. Although McCullough’s written mention blood test, McCullough testified told hospital staff, through Manning, administer one. insist blood test required union agreement, instructs alcohol tests conducted manner preserves samples confirmatory testing. refused blood test agreed take breathalyzer test, showed trace alcohol system. McCullough regarded refusal take blood test insubordinate, placed administrative leave pending further investigation.

Around this Hughes replaced McCullough chief. Hoping impose discipline short firing Taylor, Hughes offered him brief three suspension. refused accept discipline, however, him, citing “insubordinate threatening behavior.” following month, complaint with EEOC. *3 thereafter filed suit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S.C. § 2000e. He alleged was subjected racially fired because of his The district judge entered

judgment defendants. Regarding discriminatory discharge claim, judge acknowledged assertion racist comments, concluded were too remote termination decision suggest discrimination. The judge held was untimely than before his moved reconsideration, citing Ortiz Werner Enterprises, Inc. , F.3d 764–66 2016). He argued district court improperly “compartmentalized” “segmented” evidence rather than evaluating it “as whole.” The judge denied motion, concluding evidence “atmosphere racism” department insufficient raise material dispute about causation. The judge reaffirmed conclusion ‐ untimely. appeal maintains district court’s compartmentalized review evidence obscured link between racism at discharge. If evidence were viewed holistically, argues, reasonable fact finder conclude based race rather insubordination, as contend.

In reviewing grant judgment, we assess record de novo reach our own conclusions record us. Sears, Roebuck & Co. F.3d 2000). Summary is appropriate moving party shows there is genuine issue material fact is entitled matter law. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c). Regarding discriminatory discharge we determine “whether evidence permit reasonable factfinder conclude plaintiff’s . . . caused discharge.” Ortiz at 765; see McKinney Office Sheriff Whitley Cty. record considered whole, “no should treated differently can be labeled ‘direct’ ‘indirect.’” Ortiz dispute whether insubordinate encompasses genuine

issues fact go heart claim. *4 ‐ 4 maintain was he disobeyed McCullough’s order submit blood test. They argue even if McCullough’s order did not specify hospital administer blood test, refusal insubordinate he knew blood test required collective bargaining agreement. hand, has presented challenging insubordination reason pretextual. Coleman v. Donahoe 835, 852–53 2012) (remanding where identified weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, contradictions employer’s explanation for discharge). He points out McCullough’s written order required “a test alcohol.” breathalyzer test, he complete, presumably satisfies requirement. And collective bargaining agreement does specify any particular method substance ‐ abuse test. These disputes, if resolved favor, could convince jury rationale pretext discrimination, especially jury believes assertion Hughes earlier negative comments about blacks department. challenges finding ‐ untimely. Even though racial charge, argues suffered from “covert campaign” hostility—composed false accusations DuVall, Manning, insubordinate drank job—that continued into day Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. (2002); Adams City Indianapolis 2014).

But present inferred suffered any overt covert period preceding accusations have component. cannot point limitations period has “explicitly dimension,” let alone has “character purpose.” Vance Ball State Univ.

We accordingly VACATE order granting defendants’ motion REMAND further proceedings. We AFFIRM dismissing untimely. *5 ‐ 1097 5

ROVNER, Circuit Judge concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the majority’s determination that there are genuine issues fact preclude on wrongful termination claim, and I agree that should be remanded a trial on the merits. But I would conclude that Taylor also presented sufficient overcome his claim, and I would remand a trial the merits well.

The majority finds time ‐ barred ‐ occurred more than days before filed U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1). “A charge alleging a however, will not be time barred long all acts constitute are same unlawful practice and least one act falls within time period.” National R.R. Passenger Corp. (2002). asserts that, although overt racial hostility ceased charge, harassment continued covert means into ‐ day period. overt ‐ day period

perpetrated by same persons engaged in covert day Specifically, period outside day range, presented DuVall used word “nigger” approximately twenty times presence, called him a “spook,” and suggested father law want shoot himself daughter married black man. DuVall also told several black firefighters they belong and eventually be eradicated. Manning employed slurs, calling “moon cricket” and telling and black firefighters they have right skin color department.

Within day period, falsely accused drinking job insubordination, spurious accusations easily lead termination firefighter, job requires sobriety conformance chain command. majority concludes accusations lacked “racial component.” majority asserts cited no period character purpose. I disagree.

When supervisors have referred plaintiff “nigger,” “spook” “moon cricket,” when have told firefighters have business being there should eradicated department, their ensuing false accusations alcohol abuse have obvious character *6 purpose: to remove from department on basis of “[F]orms of might seem neutral terms of race (or sex other protected status) can contribute to hostile environment claim if supports a reasonable inference tying to plaintiff ʹ s protected status.” Cole Board of Trustees of N. Ill. Univ. See Vance Ball State Univ. 2011) (“Although plaintiff does need identify explicitly dimension of challenged sustain she able attribute ‘character purpose’ it.”). judgment, reasonable jury infer men had openly expressed animus desire rid department African American employees had changed their minds intervening year had simply changed their tactics attempting force out job. seemingly neutral charges had purpose eradicating man believed wrong skin color. These acts are all ”part same unlawful practice,” bring claim hostile environment Adams City Indianapolis 2014) (a timely long act falls statutory time period, even encompasses events occurring statutory period). I reverse grant favor remand trial merits. I therefore respectfully dissent majority’s affirming claim.