09-2709 Swearnigen-El v. Cook County Sheriff's Department

Listen to this article

Employment
Discrimination; pretext

Where evidence supported a finding that a correctional officer was having sex with inmates, his termination was not race or sex discrimination.

"[T]he defendants offer legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: (1) Burns's letter stated that officers in Swearnigen's division were having sex with detainees; (2) detainees told investigators and the ASAs that Swearnigen was having sex with Warrington; (3) Warrington admitted having sexual contact with Swearnigen in the jail; and (4) phone records indicated that Swearnigen accepted collect calls from Warrington to his personal cell phone. General Order 3.8 prohibits these acts; thus, Swearnigen was not meeting his legitimate job expectations. And the fact that Swearnigen was subsequently acquitted does not demonstrate pretext because the government bore a high burden of proof at trial. See Faas, 532 F.3d at 642 ('Pretext means a dishonest explanation, a lie rather than an oddity or an error.') (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Swearnigen has not shown discriminatory motivation under the direct method or carried his burden under the indirect method, he cannot avoid summary judgment on his race discrimination claim."

Affirmed.

09-2709 Swearnigen-El v. Cook County Sheriff's Department

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bucklo, J., Evans, J.

Full Text