United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
S. SHAH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
around 3:30 a.m. one morning, plaintiff Vincent Foggey, a
black man and eight-year veteran of the Chicago Police
Department, walked into a Walgreens to take what was supposed
to be a fifteen-minute break. More than thirty minutes later,
Foggey's partner Sanjin Hodzic (a white male officer on
his third day on the job) radioed to request a check in.
Foggey left the Walgreens and encountered Hodzic struggling
to subdue a violent aggressor. The Chicago Police Board
eventually suspended and terminated Foggey for failing to
adequately assist Hodzic. Foggey says he was singled out for
discriminatory treatment. The City's motion for summary
judgment is granted because Foggey has presented no evidence
from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the City
retaliated against him for complaining about discrimination
or that the reasons the City gave for suspending and
terminating him were pretextual justifications for race-based
or sex-based discrimination.
judgment is appropriate if 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). The moving party must show
that, after “construing all facts, and drawing all
reasonable inferences from those facts, in favor of the
non-moving party, ” United States v. P.H.
Glatfelter Co., 768 F.3d 662, 668 (7th Cir. 2014), a
reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the non-moving
party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). The moving party is entitled to summary
judgment when the “nonmoving party has failed to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with
respect to which she has the burden of proof.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
“[A] scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving
party's position will be insufficient to survive a
summary judgment motion; there must be evidence on which the
jury could reasonably find in favor of the nonmoving
party.” Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932,
937 (7th Cir. 2010). The party opposing summary judgment has
the responsibility to identify the evidence that would
sufficiently raise a disputed issue for trial. Bunn v.
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Valley Bank Illinois, 908
F.3d 290, 297 (7th Cir. 2018). Perfunctory arguments,
undeveloped arguments, and arguments unsupported by pertinent
authority are waived. Id.
Foggey, a black man, [140-2] 115:18-23, became a Chicago
Police Department officer in 2006.  ¶ 8; 
¶ 8. During the next eight years, he received
nearly thirty achievement awards and, six months before the
events in question, received a performance review that noted
he was “exceeding expectations.” 
¶¶ 1, 2.
about 3:30 a.m. one morning, Foggey requested a
fifteen-minute personal break to meet with a friend inside of
a Walgreens pharmacy.  ¶ 12;  ¶ 12. His
partner, Sanjin Hodzic, waited outside in the squad car.
Id. More than fifteen minutes later, Hodzic used his
radio to request that Foggey check-in.  ¶¶ 12,
13;  ¶¶ 12, 13. When Foggey responded, Hodzic
said he needed him in the parking lot. [140-2] 63:17-65:18;
[140-5] 81:9-83:14. Foggey could hear yelling in the
background and considered it a priority to find out what was
going on but did not radio Hodzic back.  ¶ 15;
 ¶ 15. He says he walked out of the store. 
¶¶ 16, 17;  ¶ 17. But see
[148-5] at 3 (the friend Foggey was visiting says he
“jumped up and he ran” once the radio came on).
a white man who had been a fully certified police officer for
three days, radioed Foggey because he had just witnessed a
fight break out in the parking lot. See 
¶¶ 14, 15, 17;  ¶ 14; [140-5] 119:15-23,
126:18-21; [140-3] at 59. As Foggey exited the Walgreens, he
could see Hodzic and a man, William Brewer, engaged in a
struggle on the far side of their squad car. 
¶¶ 14, 17, 18;  ¶ 14, 17, 18. Foggey saw
Hodzic and Brewer engage in a conversation before Hodzic
jerked Brewer towards the squad car and then tackled him to
the ground. [140-2] 72:4-73:6. Throughout, Foggey continued
walking toward Hodzic and Brewer at roughly the same pace.
 ¶ 19;  ¶ 19.
Foggey approached, Hodzic and Brewer were on the ground.
 ¶ 20;  ¶ 20. Brewer was face down with
Hodzic on top of him. [140-2] 79:11-15. Foggey leaned down,
grabbed Brewer, and told him to put his hands behind his
back. [140-2] 79:16-80:23. Hodzic handcuffed Brewer, Brewer
was searched, and a knife was found.  ¶ 22; 
¶ 22. Foggey used his radio (for the first time since
leaving Walgreens) to tell the dispatcher Brewer was in
custody and secured Brewer within the police car.
Id.; [140-2] 82:18-83:3, 294:15-22.
did not tell Foggey what was happening outside of the
Walgreens in either of the two radio transmissions that he
made to Foggey that evening but his training indicated that
he should have done so. [140-5] 83:16-84:1, 86:14-87:9.
Hodzic also admitted that it was not “fully
accurate” when he later told the person charged with
investigating whether Foggey committed misconduct
(then-Sergeant, now-Lieutenant Timothy Wolf, see
 ¶ 32;  ¶ 32) that Foggey did not provide
assistance until Hodzic had already placed Brewer in
handcuffs because, before that, Foggey had also reached down
and pulled on Brewer's shirt while Hodzic was on top of
Brewer. [140-5] 274:10-276:23.
Elise Padilla, a Hispanic woman who arrived on scene shortly
after Brewer was in custody, says that Foggey told her
something to the effect of, “these young kids are
always getting involved in something.” [140-6]
93:3-94:8;  ¶ 10;  ¶ 10. Foggey does not
remember saying that. [140-2] 84:11-85:1.
next day, as part of his duties as station supervisor,
Sergeant Joaquin Mendoza (a Hispanic male) viewed a video of
the events in question in order to determine whether there
was probable cause to arrest Brewer for aggravated battery of
a police officer. [140-7] 73:16-74:22, 152:7-21;  ¶
10;  ¶ 10. After viewing that video, he initiated a
complaint against Foggey for dereliction of duty (failing to
assist his partner with an active assailant). [140-7]
44:2-12, 46:15-17. Mendoza said that Foggey had something in
his hand as he exited the Walgreens (because the video
depicted Foggey's elbow outstretched in front of him),
but Mendoza also admitted that he was not able to see
Foggey's hand at any point during the video. [140-7]
153:3- 160:11. Mendoza was aware of other videos of that
event (e.g., videos from security cameras inside the
Walgreens) but he did not view those videos because they were
not relevant to his investigation (i.e., the investigation
into whether there was probable cause to believe that Brewer
had committed aggravated battery). [140-7] 151:4-152:21.
Instead, Mendoza believed the responsibility for obtaining
and reviewing those videos would fall to whichever detective
was charged with investigating his complaint against Foggey.
Id. A different officer with the Bureau of Internal
Affairs (Lieutenant Wolf) conducted the investigation into
the complaint filed by Mendoza.  ¶ 32;  ¶
says that his coworkers later told him that Mendoza, Padilla,
and Sergeant Charles Gray played one of the videos of the
incident in front of Foggey's coworkers.  ¶ 36;
 ¶ 36. Foggey saw Sgt. Mendoza sitting at the front
desk of the station with a “crowd of officers …
huddled around him watching” a video of the events at
Walgreens. [140-2] 109:2-111:1. Foggey could hear the audio
of his radio transmissions with Hodzic. [140-2] 110:5-110:19.
did not intentionally display the video for other officers
(other than his supervisor). See [140-7]
242:4-244:24;  ¶ 37;  ¶
. Mendoza was watching the video at his
front desk because his computer was one of the only computers
capable of playing the video. [140-7] 243:6-12. Other
officers may have come up to him while he was ...