Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—7th Cir.: FEMA specialist, removed from relief operation and suspended, does not revive claims, (Jan 2, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

During the relief operation he referred to female coworkers as “sorority girls” and remarked to one that he had “paddled the butts of daughters who were older than her.”

A FEMA technical hazards specialist who was removed from a relief operation in Puerto Rico and later suspended without pay was unable to revive his claims of sex and age discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. The appeals court determined that the lower court had not erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the federal employer, explaining that the specialist failed to “come to grips with the misconduct” cited by the employer as the legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the adverse actions, nor did he factually dispute it for the most part. Ultimately, he failed to identify evidence suggesting that he was treated less favorably than younger and/or female employees who had engaged in similar misconduct or that his discipline was “tainted by animus” (Rabenhorst v. Noem, No. 24-1297 (7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025)).

Troubles with state officials. After a nearly 30-year career with the Navy and Naval Reserve, the plaintiff was hired by FEMA in 2009 as a technical hazards specialist who focuses on radiological emergency preparedness. At first, he was assigned to work with officials in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. In 2017, however, he was reassigned to a post that did not involve work with state officials. Prior to that time, he was repeatedly reprimanded for inappropriate interactions with state officials and Ohio officials specifically asked that he not be assigned to work on future Ohio events. In August 2017 he was also overheard making inappropriate and crude comments about his supervisor to a contractor and was warned not to speak to contractors. Nevertheless, the next day he had a lengthy conversation with another contractor. As a result, his supervisor began preparations to discipline him for insubordination and interfering with contractors.

Puerto Rico deployment. However, before that was completed, the specialist was deployed to Puerto Rico in the wake of a hurricane. He was assigned to oversee air operations, and, in that capacity, he was working with female FEMA employees who, he contends, knew nothing about air operations and management. Tensions arose and the female employees became uncomfortable working with him. Specifically, he used profanity during staff meetings and treated his female coworkers and supervisors with disrespect. On one occasion he referred to some of his female colleagues as “sorority girls” and stated to one of them that he had “paddled the butts of daughters who were older than her.” One month after he arrived in Puerto Rico, the FEMA official serving as chief of staff for the relief effort removed him from the operation for cause, based on his treatment of co-workers.

Thereafter, the specialist contacted DHS’s Office of Equal Rights and later filed an internal complaint of employment discrimination. His supervisor averred that he was not aware of the complaint, although the specialist testified that he told him that he intended to file a complaint.

Discipline. The supervisor, meanwhile, decided to move forward with disciplining the specialist based on his conduct both before and during the Puerto Rico deployment. In June 2018, the specialist received a proposed suspension of 14 days based on charges that he had exhibited conduct unbecoming a federal employee, failed to follow instructions, and engaged in disruptive conduct. In August 2018, the supervisor cancelled the specialist’s participation in two FEMA exercises, leading the employee to file another complaint. In October, he was suspended without pay for 13 days based on the prior charges.

Summary judgment. He later filed suit, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the federal employer, concluding that the employee failed to show he was meeting his employer’s legitimate work expectations and failed to show that similarly situated female and/or significantly younger employees were treated more favorably. Moreover, the court noted that even if the employee had established a prima facie case, he presented no evidence of pretext or discriminatory motivation. The lower court likewise found no evidence sufficient to support his HWE or retaliation claims. The specialist appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court had not erred in entering summary judgment for the employer. At the outset, it rejected the employee’s argument that the lower court had abused its discretion with its application of certain local rules.

Misconduct, not qualifications. “More generally,” the appeals court explained, the employee “argues that the district court ignored evidence that he was a highly qualified and experienced employee who was not afraid to call out his colleagues’ failure to comply with the professional and legal demands of their jobs.” The specialist saw this as the reason he was singled out for adverse treatment by supervisors. “Of course,” the court noted, “this gets him nowhere with his discrimination claims unless he can somehow link any animus arising from this history of criticism to his age and/or sex.” The closest he came to doing that, the court explained, was by suggesting that his removal from Puerto Rico was, as the court described it, “because his young, inexperienced female co-workers did not want to be told what to do by an older man.”

However, regarding that removal as well as his suspension, the court explained, the specialist failed to “come to grips with the misconduct that the Secretary has cited as the legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for taking adverse action against him—misconduct that for the most part he does not factually dispute.” Instead, the employee argued that his co-workers were violating rules and procedures and were incompetent, whereas he was doing his job correctly and conscientiously. However, the misconduct for which he was disciplined was the “insubordination, disrespect, and intemperance in the way he expressed his concerns and interacted with co-workers and contractors.” His employer had a legitimate interest in having employees respect the chain of command and follow orders, the court explained. And he failed to show that the younger and/or female workers engaged in comparable misconduct. He focused on their qualifications for their assigned work responsibilities but presented no evidence that they had engaged in inappropriate verbal conduct or insubordination. And he failed to identify any evidence that either supervisor (the one who suspended him or the one who booted him from Puerto Rico) were motivated by age or sex in disciplining him.

Retaliation. His hostile work environment and retaliation claims likewise were not revived. Regarding the latter, the court noted that “apart from the sequence of events,” there was no evidence suggesting that the supervisor who suspended him was influenced by his EEO complaint. The evidence indicated that the supervisor intended to pursue discipline against him before Puerto Rico and his intent was reinforced by the events there.

The case is No. 24-1297.

Judge: Rovner, I.

Attorneys: Michael T. Smith (Law Office of Michael T. Smith & Associates) for Karl Rabenhorst. Danielle Anne Phillip, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for Kristi L. Noem.

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Retaliation IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews