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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Ah ha, so the architect of the ISC Commission to advance racial preferences and gender warfare, a commission that has no place at the inn for any suffering religious discrimination, see details http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 ..... this grand architect of that institutionalized 14th amendment violation just cannot bring himself to utter the word religious discrimination, now can he: "Shepard noted two questions rise immediately from the decision. The first is how will trial courts handle allegations of racism during jury deliberations? The second is does this exception apply only to race? Shepard believes the exception to Rule 606 could also be applied to sexual orientation and gender." Thus barks the Shepard: "Race, gender, sexual orientation". But not religion, oh no, not that. YET CONSIDER ... http://www.pewforum.org/topics/restrictions-on-religion/ Of course the old dog's inability to see this post modern phenomena, but to instead myopically focus on the sexual orientation issues, again betrays one of his pet protects, see here http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/files/fair-pubs-summit-agenda.pdf Does such preference also reveal the mind of an anti-religious bigot? There can be no doubt that those on the front lines of the orientation battle often believe religion their enemy. That certainly could explain why the ISC kicked me in the face and down the proverbial crevice when I documented religious discrimination in its antechambers in 2009 .... years before the current turnover began that ended with a whole new court (hallelujah!) in 2017. Details on the kick to my face here http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/329933/ Friends and countrymen, harbor no doubt about it .... anti-religious bias is strong with this old dog, it is. One can only wonder what Hoosier WW2 hero and great jurist Justice Alfred Pivarnik would have made of all of this? Take this comment home for us, Gary Welsh (RIP): http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2005/05/sex-lies-and-supreme-court-justices.html

  2. my sister hit a horse that ran in the highway the horse belonged to an amish man she is now in a nurseing home for life. The family the horse belonged to has paid some but more needs to be paid she also has kids still at home...can we sue in the state f Indiana

  3. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  4. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  5. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

ADVERTISEMENT