Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCHARGE—7th Cir.: Fired transgender Chicago bus operator failed to establish sex discrimination, FMLA violations, (Jun 25, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

A union representative rebuffed his request for help pursuing coverage for a procedure relevant to his transition that his CTA insurance plan denied.

The Chicago Transit Authority and an Amalgamated Transit union local were entitled to summary judgment against claims brought by a transgender bus operator who was fired after taking leave “on two dozen occasions without properly informing his employer,” the Seventh Circuit held. Having failed to show that the CTA used his 24 absences as a pretext to conceal its discriminatory motive for firing him, the employee presented insufficient evidence of either sex discrimination or retaliation by the CTA, or FMLA interference or retaliation. In addition, his Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against the union failed in the absence of evidence of either an adverse action or causation (Brown v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 25-1750 (7th Cir. June 24, 2026)).

CTA bus operator. The CTA, according to the court, hired the plaintiff in 2016 as a bus operator, and he was represented by a union, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241.

Transition. The employee historically identified as a woman, but by 2017 he began identifying as a man. During his transition, he asked a union representative to clarify the CTA’s bathroom policy. The union representative referred him to a CTA manager, and he met with CTA management and learned he could use whichever bathroom he wanted. According to the manager, the union president Keith Hill spoke to the manager and compared the bus operator’s request to an employee seeking accommodation for a disability.

Union rebuffs request for help with transition coverage. The following year, the employee asked a union representative about insurance coverage for a procedure relevant to his transition that his CTA insurance plan denied. The union representative rebuffed his request for help, and the operator then engaged the American Civil Liberties Union to pressure the CTA to expand its insurance coverage. Shortly thereafter, the CTA expanded its insurance coverage to include the procedures he needed.

Online harassment. The employee also experienced online harassment from fellow employees in 2018. The harassment did not explicitly reference his transgender identity, but he reported the harassment to a union representative. He also related the incident to the CTA’s Equal Employment Opportunity Unit, but he did not file a grievance with the union.

Transfer and comments from union president. Two years later, in June 2020, he began reporting to a new work location at a garage on the south side of Chicago. Shortly after this transfer, he encountered the union president at the garage. In comments the latter recalled as warning the bus operator that passengers on the south side of Chicago can be more aggressive, the union president told him, “all that bitchin you been doing ain’t going to cut it down here. You’re out south now.”

FMLA application. Around that period, on June 9, the employee applied for intermittent leave under the FMLA for “random back pains” not related to his gender identity. He heard back from the CTA’s independent FMLA administrator the same day he applied. The administrator requested medical certification to support his application from a healthcare professional of his choosing. Depending on the certification the applicant provides, the administrator sometimes required a second medical opinion from a medical provider it selects. And if the first and second medical opinions disagree, the administrator may require a third medical opinion from a specialist jointly approved by the employee and the CTA.

The employee submitted a medical certification from a chiropractor attesting to his qualification for intermittent FMLA leave. The administrator was familiar with the chiropractor, because he had submitted FMLA certifications for CTA employees with unusual frequency and often opined outside of his specialty. Consistent with its general practice when it received certifications from that chiropractor, the administrator requested the bus operator obtain a second medical opinion.

Leave application denied. In July 2020, he met with an orthopedist to obtain a second medical opinion. The orthopedist concluded that he was not qualified for FMLA leave, and to resolve the disagreement between the two medical opinions, the administrator’s vendor sent the bus operator a letter with instructions on scheduling an appointment to obtain a third medical opinion. The vendor also called him to set up the appointment. He did not respond, however, and the administrator ultimately deferred to the second opinion and denied his application for FMLA leave.

24 unreported absences. As his FMLA application languished, the employee called in FMLA absences to his work location without reporting them to the administrator. By October 2020, he had accumulated 24 days in which he reported FMLA leave to his work location without contacting the FMLA administrator.

Discharge decision. A CTA manager took him out of service, and, in a meeting with a business manager at his work location the following day, the bus operator could not explain why he had failed to report his FMLA leave to the FMLA administrator. The business manager therefore recommended to his supervisor that the operator be discharged for falsification.

Union’s intervention. The employee worked with the union to stave off discharge. He spoke multiple times with the union president and union representatives about keeping his job. He sought extra time to contest his dismissal and asked a union representative to request a “notice of further investigation,” which suspends the general requirement that the CTA take disciplinary action within ten days of notifying an employee of misconduct. After union representatives met with CTA management, the CTA agreed to issue such a notice for him.

LCA? He also sought a “last chance agreement” (LCA) which permits an employee to avoid discharge by entering a form of probationary reinstatement. The union president requested that CTA management grant the operator such an agreement, but the CTA rebuffed the request.

“[B]raggartly”? A CTA official recalled that in a conversation with the union president during this period that the latter mentioned that the operator had come to the union’s offices and acted “braggartly” by expressing “that he wasn’t working and that CTA couldn’t do anything to him as a result.”

Fired for falsification. On January 7, 2021, the business manager’s supervisor discharged the bus operator for falsification. Her letter recited his 24 absences and his failure to report them to the FMLA administrator. Around that time, CTA management at his garage discharged four other bus operators, none of whom were transgender, for FMLA falsification. The union president was similarly unsuccessful in persuading the CTA to offer those employees an LCA.

Union’s efforts. After the CTA denied the bus operator’s discharge grievance, the union sent a letter signed by the union president requesting arbitration for his grievance, along with 26 others. The union also filed a class action grievance challenging the FMLA-related suspension and discharge of employees, including the bus operator.

His grievance, the court noted, has remained in a backlog of grievances pending arbitration that are addressed chronologically, with 184 pending discharge grievances as of January 2023. Grievances preceding his included those from seven employees discharged for FMLA falsification in the months preceding his termination. The union’s class action grievance is also pending arbitration.

Lawsuit. In April 2021, the employee filed discrimination charges against the union and the CTA with the EEOC, and after receiving notice of his right to sue, he brought suit against the CTA and the union. Against both parties, he claimed gender identity-based discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Against the CTA alone, he brought interference, and retaliation claims under the FMLA as well as a claim for municipal liability on the grounds that the CTA’s alleged sex-based discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Decision below and appeal. Ultimately, the district court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The court concluded the bus operator failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find in his favor on any of his claims. He appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Title VII sex discrimination claim against CTA. The appeals court found that summary judgment was appropriate against the bus operator’s Title VII sex discrimination claim against the CTA. He claimed that he identified other bus operators accused of FMLA reporting violations who were not discharged, but he never identified those comparators or showed that they qualify as comparable. The CTA also had legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonpretextual reasons for firing him, according to the appeals court. He argued that the CTA used his 24 absences as pretext to conceal its discriminatory motive for firing him, but his assertions either failed to cite to the record at all or pointed to irrelevant testimony.

CTA and Title VII retaliation. The employee’s Title VII retaliation claim against the CTA fared similarly. He alleged that the CTA fired him because of his advocacy for transgender employees, and the parties did not dispute that he satisfied the first element of a retaliation claim through his bathroom inquiry in 2017 and his campaign for broader insurance coverage in 2018, but his discharge was in 2021. Here, the court found that the multi-year gap between his protected activity and his firing was “far from ‘suspicious,’ and the ‘substantial time lapse between [the] protected activity and the adverse action is counter-evidence of any causal connection.’”

FMLA claims. The bus operator’s FMLA interference claim also failed, largely for reasons cited by the district court: he did not complete the required third medical assessment, and federal regulations provide that “[i]f the employee does not attempt in good faith to reach agreement [on a third health care provider], the employee will be bound by the second certification.”

The Seventh Circuit also agreed with the district court that the bus operator forfeited this FMLA retaliation claim by failing to develop it in his briefing.

Title VII sex discrimination claim against union. Turning to the employee’s Title VII sex discrimination claim against the union, the appeals court observed that the bus operator argued that the union took adverse action against him by failing to request an LCA or to file a grievance. Here, however, none of the citations he provided indicated that the union indeed declined to file a grievance or request an LCA.

Retaliation. Finally, the bus operator’s Title VII retaliation claim against the union was similarly unsupported. He pointed to the union president’s “braggartly” comment as alleged evidence of unlawful retaliation for his past advocacy activity, and he argued that it was linked to the October 2020 audit commenced by the employer’s business manager. However, he thus appeared to be switching to a reference to the employer’s action rather than the union’s conduct, and he pointed to “no evidence of ‘coordinated conduct’ supporting this inference.”

The case is No. 25-1750.

Judge: St. Eve, A.

Attorneys: Christina Abraham (Law Offices of Christina Abraham) for Russia Brown. Ruth F. Masters (Law Offices of Ruth F. Masters) for Chicago Transit Authority. George A. Luscombe, III (Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Cervone, Auerbach & Yokich) for Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241.

Companies: Chicago Transit Authority; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination EmployeeLeave Labor UnionsMembers Retaliation Discharge Procedure IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews