United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS M. DURKIN, District Judge.
Charles King, who is African-American, alleges that his employer, the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (the "IDJJ"), discriminated against him based on his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. R. 1. The IDJJ has moved for summary judgment. R. 33. For the following reasons, the IDJJ's motion is granted.
King was employed by the IDJJ in Joliet, Illinois, for eleven years as a Juvenile Justice Specialist. R. 42 ¶ 1; R. 48 ¶ 2. On June 1, 2011, at about 5:00 p.m., King was assigned to monitor juvenile inmates as they left the dining area. R. 42 ¶¶ 8-9. One inmate refused to leave the dining area and spoke disrespectfully to King. Id. ¶ 9. The inmate eventually got up from his seat and began to leave the dining area. Id. ¶ 13. The inmate, however, continued to speak to King disrespectfully, so King ordered the inmate to turn around so King could handcuff him. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. When King attempted to handcuff the inmate, the inmate knocked King's hands away and spat in King's face. Id. ¶ 15. King then tackled the inmate to the ground, id. ¶ 16, and another Juvenile Justice Specialist, Alejandro Cervantes, assisted King in placing handcuffs on the inmate. Id. ¶ 17. King then helped the inmate to his feet. Id. ¶ 18. The inmate suffered scrapes on his head, knees, and elbow from the altercation, id. ¶¶ 19-20, but King did not suffer any injuries. Id. ¶ 21.
King called his supervisor, John Henley, to inform him about the incident and that King would be taking the inmate to the confinement unit. Id. ¶¶ 22, 24. King then took the inmate to the confinement unit, id. ¶ 24, while Cervantes went back into the dining area. Id. ¶ 23. The IDJJ's statement pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 states that King "did not punch or kick the [inmate] while walking the [inmate] to confinement, " and King of course agrees with this statement. Id. ¶ 27. The inmate, however, claimed King punched and kicked him, id. ¶ 28, and the investigation into King's conduct concluded that he had punched and kicked the inmate, while he was still handcuffed, sometime after they left the dining area and before they reached the confinement unit. See R. 35-4 at 9; R. 35-6 at 12.
Another Juvenile Justice Specialist, Charles McKinney, met King at the confinement unit and took custody of the inmate to escort him to the medical unit. Id. ¶¶ 26, 29. Supervisor Henley arrived at the confinement unit about two minutes after King got there with the inmate. Id. ¶ 30. At about 5:30 p.m., Henley called Superintendent John Rita reporting that King had been assaulted by an inmate and described the incident. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. Henley reported to Rita that the inmate had been taken to the health care unit and returned to the confinement unit because the inmate only had a few minor scratches on his face. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. Rita relayed this information to Deputy Director Ron Smith. Id. ¶ 35.
At about 7:30 p.m., Supervisor Henley called Superintendent Rita again to inform him that the nurse had placed the inmate on observation status due to a bump on his head. Id. ¶ 36. Rita then spoke with Nurse Sherri Hurly and learned that the inmate had been placed under observation for precautionary reasons because the inmate had a few contusions on his head and may have hit his head. Id. ¶ 37.
The next day, June 2, Superintendent Rita was told by Chief of Security Luther Byrd that the inmate appeared to have sustained serious injuries, which Rita confirmed by visiting the inmate with Byrd. Id. ¶ 38. Rita informed Deputy Director Smith of the update regarding the inmate's injuries, and Smith instructed Rita to request an external investigation of the incident. Id. ¶ 40.
Investigator A.C. Kinard, an investigator with the Illinois Department of Corrections, was assigned to investigate charges against King of official misconduct, battery of a youth, conduct of an individual, and use of excessive force on a youth. Id. ¶ 41. Kinard interviewed King, the inmate, and other witnesses. Id. ¶¶ 44, 46. Kinard's investigation substantiated the charges against King, id. ¶ 47, and concluded that King has assaulted the inmate, while the inmate was still handcuffed, in between the time they left the dining area and arrived at the confinement unit. See R. 35-4 at 9; R. 35-6 at 12. The investigation also substantiated charges against Supervisor Henley and Juvenile Justice Specialist Cervantes for "provid[ing] false and misleading" information during the investigation. R. 35-4 at 9-10. Based on Kinard's investigation and conclusion, Chief Byrd recommended, and Superintendent Rita determined, that King should be referred to the Employee Review Board for disciplinary action. Id. ¶¶ 48-49.
King's Employee Review Hearing took place on August 15, 2011. Id. ¶ 50. Cervantes, the Juvenile Justice Specialist who helped King handcuff the inmate, testified at the hearing. Id. ¶ 52. According to King, Cervantes testified at the hearing that the inmate was handcuffed without incident, whereas Cervantes had previously stated that an "incident" had occurred when King and Cervantes tried to handcuff the inmate. Id.; R. 35-2 at 72. The hearing officer recommended to Deputy Director Smith that King be discharged. R. 42 ¶ 54.
Based on a review of the hearing officer's findings, Investigator Kinard's findings, and a report from Chief Byrd, Deputy Director Smith agreed to discharge King. Id. ¶ 55. Director Author Bishop approved King's discharge. Id. ¶ 56. King was terminated on October 1, 2011. Id. ¶ 58.
King cites one other non-African-American IDJJ employee, Juvenile Justice Specialist, Marcus Vasquez, who he alleges committed similar violations but who he alleges was disciplined more leniently. Vasquez is a Latino-American. Vasquez was assaulted by an inmate. R. 42 ¶ 60. King testified that other IDJJ employees told him that in defending himself, Vasquez punched the inmate many times and broke his hand doing so. Id. ¶¶ 61-62. King testified that he saw the inmate after the incident, and the inmate was seriously injured. R. 48 ¶ 7. King, however, did not witness the incident, review documents regarding the incident, or speak with Vasquez about the incident. R. 42 ¶¶ 63-64. Chief Byrd investigated Vasquez's case and determined that Vasquez's conduct did not merit discipline. Id. ¶ 68; R. 48 ¶ 9. There is no other evidence or testimony in the record about Vasquez's case.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The Court considers the entire evidentiary record and must view all of the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Ball v. Kotter, 723 F.3d 813, 821 (7th Cir. 2013). To defeat summary judgment, a nonmovant must produce more than "a mere scintilla of evidence" and come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Harris N.A. v. Hershey, 711 F.3d 794, 798 (7th ...