ILNews

7th Circuit affirms ruling against former jail nurses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a discrimination and hostile work environment case, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded for the first time that displays of confederate flags in the workplace may support a hostile work environment claim. However, the judges agreed with the District Court that several African-American nurses formerly employed by a Marion County jail could not support their legal claims.  

In Harriett Ellis, et al. v. CCA of Tennessee LLC d/b/a Corrections Corporation of America, No. 10-2768, former nurses of Marion County Jail II, privately run by CCA of Tennessee, filed a suit against the company claiming racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and that CCA of Tennessee constructively terminated their employment for complaining about problems at the jail in violation of the state whistleblower law.

The nurses’ examples of racial discrimination and hostile work environment were changing shift assignments so that everyone worked a different shift every month, a book found in an administrator’s office referencing monkeys in the work place as in “there is a monkey on my back,” the wearing of a confederate flag t-shirt by two different employees, and a doctor referring to an inmate whose last name was Cole as having the first name as either “black as” or “black ass.” The nurses later quit their jobs and filed this suit.

The District Court granted summary judgment for CCA of Tennessee, finding the plaintiffs didn’t create jury-triable issues on their claims of federal employment discrimination and state-law retaliatory discharge, as well as that one plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by res judicata.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that there were no genuine issues of material fact relating to the nurses’ legal claims. The judges did note that the 7th Circuit had never addressed the matter of whether displays of confederate flags in the workplace may support a hostile work environment claim. They agreed with other courts that those displays may support that claim. But in this case, the plaintiffs’ limited number or claims are insufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim, wrote Judge Joel Flaum.

Also, summary judgment was appropriate on their whistleblower claims because they pointed out no violation of a state law or rule, or anything else within the whistleblower act’s ambit.

The judges did find that the District Court erred in concluding that one plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by claim preclusion. Plaintiff Patricia Forrest had filed an earlier unsuccessful federal lawsuit, and the District judge believed Forrest could have amended her complaint in the earlier suit to allege conduct that occurred between the time when she filed the suit and the time when CCA of Tennessee moved for summary judgment. That conclusion didn’t accurately reflect caselaw, wrote Judge Flaum, but the error was a harmless error. The plaintiffs didn’t argue that her claims differed on the merits from the rest of the plaintiffs’ claims.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT