ILNews

Court upholds discrimination claims in coroner's office

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that an African-American Marion County Coroner took action against his white chief deputy coroner because of race, but ordered a reduction in the amount of compensatory damages the deputy coroner could receive.

John Linehan was stripped of certain duties as chief deputy coroner and eventually fired by then-coroner Dr. Kenneth Ackles. Ackles chose Linehan as his chief deputy coroner when he was elected. Ackles wanted to find a way to have more African-Americans work in the office.

Issues arose between Ackles and Linehan when Linehan wanted to discipline Alfarena Ballew, an African-American female deputy coroner, who was late to meetings, crime scenes, and the hospital. Ackles did not want to discipline her. Linehan prepared a written reprimand. Ballew later sent an anonymous letter to members of the City-County Council accusing Linehan of ghost employment.

Other incidents occurred that led to Linehan filing a complaint with human resources that he worked in a hostile environment. That same day, Ackles told Linehan he was going to make a change in chief deputies and later stripped him of some duties. Ackles fired Linehan in December 2005.

An administrative law judge and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found the coroner’s office took action against Linehan based on his race and in retaliation for an internal complaint Linehan filed against Ackles. He received front and back pay, attorney’s fees, and $200,000 in compensatory damages.

The 7th Circuit granted the coroner’s office’s petition for review and affirmed the findings of discrimination and retaliation weren’t erroneous in Marion County Coroner’s Office v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and John Linehan, No. 09-3595. The judges did reduce the $200,000 compensatory damages award because of a lack of evidence supporting that amount. The testimony was brief and only indicated that Linehan had undergone weekly therapy sessions for several months for situational depression, wrote Judge Terence Evans.

Although the coroner’s office argued Linehan should receive no award, the judges found some measure of compensatory damages for emotional distress is warranted. They suggested $20,000, but if the respondents don’t consent to the remittitur, there should be a new hearing on the issue.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT