ILNews

Correctional officer fails to support claims of discrimination against employer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former officer in the Indiana Department of Correction had her claims of employment discrimination and retaliation rejected by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds she failed to provide supporting evidence.

Nora Chaib, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in France, appealed to the 7th Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted summary judgment to her employer, the Indiana Department of Correction.  

Chaib worked at the Pendleton Correctional Facility for nearly three years. She alleged she was subjected to harassment, not given adequate training, and shown hostility by other co-workers because of her gender or national origin.

The 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling in Nora Chaib v. State of Indiana, 13-1680, finding the lower court had correctly granted summary judgment to the defendant on each of Chaib’s claims.

As part of its own review of Chaib’s assertion of a hostile work environment, the 7th Circuit turned to Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2434, 2440 (2013).  

This case established that an employer is only liable for harassment from an employee’s co-workers if it was negligent in its response.

The 7th Circuit noted that after Chaib complained about her colleagues, she had no further problems with any of the officers. Moreover, she provided no evidence which indicated she had any subsequent problem with a co-worker after talking to her supervisors.

“No reasonable jury could say that her employer was negligent for failing to correct her co-workers’ behavior when it apparently corrected all of the behavior she reported,” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Judge Frederick Kapala wrote.

Kapala was sitting on the panel by designation.   
 

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT