By: Derek Hawkins//September 1, 2015//
Civil
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District Judge
Retaliatory Discharge – Title VII
No.14-1713 Eric Harden v. Marion County Sheriff’s Department
Sheriff’s investigation into theft of arrested individuals property, subsequently leading to the discharge of appellant was not rooted in retaliation.
“Lastly, Harden contends that it was highly unusual to investigate an arrestee’s theft allegation. Thus, he argues, the fact that the Sheriff’s Department initiated the theft investigation in the first place is evidence of pretext. In Baker v. Ma‐ con Resources, Inc., 750 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014), we said that “selective enforcement or investigation of a disciplinary policy can [ ] show pretext.” Id. at 677. Baker is distinguishable, however, for two reasons. First, the employer in Baker had reason to believe that the plaintiff’s supervisors had violated the same company policy as the plaintiff with regard to the same incident, but failed to “offer[] a reason why, at the same time it fired [the plaintiff] … , it chose not to investigate whether her own supervisors violated the same reporting rule.” Id. Our use of the phrase “selective investigation” did not refer to the initiation of the investigation in the first instance, but the manner in which the investigation was conducted once initiated. Here, by contrast, the Internal Affairs investigators did not selectively investigate the theft accusation; they interviewed each and every person involved in the arrest of Rybolt. And although the Sheriff’s Department did not typically initiate arrestee theft investigations, there is no evidence in the record that the Department had actually concluded that these other arrestee theft accusations had merit (unlike the Rybolt accusation). Thus, there is no evidence that the Department “selectively enforced” the disciplinary policy either. Second, in addition to selective investigation, the court in Baker also found flagrant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the employer’s supposed reason for the terminating the plaintiff. Id. In this case, by contrast, there is no evidence that the investigation was conducted in bad faith or that the investigation was not the true basis for Harden’s termination.”
Affirmed