Retaliation Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: John Brooks v. City of Pekin, Illinois

Case No.: 23-2140

Officials: St. Eve, Kirsch, and Lee, Circuit Judges

Focus: Retaliation Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Brooks, a former police lieutenant who developed sleep apnea, asserted that the City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to reasonably accommodate his condition, discriminating against him, and retaliating against him for lodging complaints. Simmons, also a former police officer, claimed retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for reporting sexually harassing comments made by his former superior. The district court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The Seventh Circuit upheld the decision of the lower court. It found that Brooks did not demonstrate that the City had failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations for his sleep apnea. Moreover, Brooks could not establish disparate treatment as he did not identify similarly situated employees who received more favorable treatment. Additionally, Brooks failed to prove retaliation because he lacked evidence that the City’s rationale for disciplining him was pretextual.

Concerning Simmons, the Court determined that he could not substantiate a claim for retaliation under Title VII because the inappropriate comments directed at him were not related to his gender and were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Furthermore, Simmons could not demonstrate that his termination resulted from his complaints against his former superior. The Court also affirmed that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiffs’ request to amend their response to the summary judgment. It declined the City’s motion to impose sanctions on Brooks and Simmons, reasoning that their appeal was not frivolous.

Affirmed.

Decided 03/08/24

Full Text