01-2038 Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Listen to this article

“Jones asserts that he was not insubordinate or quarrelsome with Agent Brody. His argument is, in essence, that under the applicable summary judgment standards we must accept his version of the facts as true, and, as such, Union Pacific could have no legitimate reason for firing him. Jones misapprehends the applicable standards. While we do accept his version of the facts as true, the actual issue is not whether Union Pacific’s account of events is correct, rather it is whether Union Pacific honestly believed the report of its officers. ‘[A]rguing about the accuracy of the employer’s assessment is a distraction . . . because the question is not whether the employer’s reasons for a decision are “right but whether the employer’s description of its reasons is honest.

“Jones cannot show that Union Pacific’s interpretation and application of company policy was improper, nor can he demonstrate that the company’s explanation (that it believed Agents Brody and Finger over Jones) was dishonest. See Kulumani v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, 224 F.3d 681, 685 (7th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, at the time the decision to discharge Jones was made, he said nothing about the charge or investigation being racially motivated. Rather, he stated that the officers were patsies used to trump up charges against him because he was involved in ‘labor activities.’ In fact, the only person who made negative comments about someone’s race was Jones. And if Union Pacific believed its officers’ version of events, it would have been remiss in not disciplining Jones for his conduct.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coar, J., Bauer, J.