Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ill.: Railroad defeats discrimination and retaliation suit brought by locomotive engineer, (Jul 10, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

The former engineer alleged a years-long campaign of harassment.

A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a multi-claim employment lawsuit brought by a locomotive engineer against his former employer, Chicago Central Pacific Railroad Company and related entities doing business as Canadian National Railroad. The plaintiff, who had worked for the railroad since 2008, alleged that he faced escalating disciplinary actions and discriminatory treatment following his testimony in a separate race discrimination case. However, the court found that nearly all the engineer’s claims were either time-barred or unsupported by evidence and granted summary judgment for the railroad on all counts. The court underscored the plaintiff’s failure to substantiate key elements of his claims and noted that unsupported allegations and speculative comparisons to coworkers could not sustain a discrimination lawsuit (Morris v. Chicago Central Pacific Railroad Co., No. 21 C 3723 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2025)).

Disciplinary history under scrutiny. The dispute centered around a series of disciplinary measures imposed on the engineer, including multiple suspensions and two terminations, each later overturned on appeal. The plaintiff alleged that the railroad’s actions escalated following his 2014 deposition in a Title VII discrimination case brought by another former employee.

Between March and August 2015, the plaintiff was subjected to a series of disciplinary actions for attendance issues and operational errors, including a 45-day suspension, two waivers of investigation leading to reprimands, and a termination that was ultimately reduced to a 20-day suspension. He returned to work in September 2017.

In subsequent years, the plaintiff faced further disciplinary measures. A 2018 train incident involving a broken knuckle led to a 15-day suspension, later overturned on appeal. He received another 30-day suspension in 2019 for speeding. In 2021, after incidents involving a failed brake test and a derailment, the railroad imposed a 60-day suspension—reduced to 30 days on appeal—and opened an investigation that was postponed when the plaintiff went on medical leave. He has not returned to work since April 2021.

The plaintiff claimed that white coworkers who engaged in similar conduct were either not disciplined or received less severe penalties. He also asserted that he received less training than a comparable white engineer after returning from leave. The court, however, found his assertions lacked sufficient factual support or detail to create a triable issue of discrimination.

Claims dismissed as time-barred or abandoned. A substantial portion of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed as untimely. The court held that his Section 1981 claims were subject to a four-year limitations period, while Title VII claims were barred for conduct predating his April 6, 2021, EEOC charge by more than 300 days. Accordingly, disciplinary actions and alleged disparate training before June 10, 2020, were outside the statutory window.

The plaintiff attempted to invoke the continuing violation doctrine, arguing that the series of disciplinary measures constituted a pattern of discrimination that tolled the limitations period. The court rejected this theory, finding that the alleged harms—suspensions, terminations, and training decisions—were discrete acts that triggered independent limitation periods and were not part of a single, continuing violation.

Additionally, the court deemed the plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act claims waived due to his failure to respond to the railroad’s arguments on summary judgment. Citing Seventh Circuit precedent, the court treated this silence as a concession.

Race discrimination and pretext arguments fall short. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under either Title VII or Section 1981. While his membership in a protected class was undisputed, he did not provide sufficient evidence that similarly situated non-Black employees were treated more favorably or that the railroad’s stated reasons for its disciplinary actions were pretextual.

The railroad consistently cited operational rule violations as the basis for discipline, and the plaintiff failed to show that these justifications were dishonest or racially motivated. Although he asserted that other employees committed similar infractions without consequence, the court found that his comparisons lacked the specific details necessary to demonstrate disparate treatment.

The plaintiff also claimed that he was denied equal training opportunities, but the court ruled that this alone did not constitute an adverse employment action unless it resulted in tangible harm such as lost pay or benefits. Because the plaintiff failed to allege such consequences, the training claim was deemed insufficient.

Hostile work environment and retaliation theories rejected. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims, finding no evidence that any alleged harassment was motivated by race. Although he claimed his treatment deteriorated after testifying in the earlier discrimination case, the court emphasized that retaliation for testimony is not the same as harassment based on race, which is a prerequisite for a viable hostile work environment claim under Title VII.

The plaintiff’s retaliation claims, including a theory of retaliatory hostile work environment, were likewise rejected. The court noted a six-year gap between the plaintiff’s 2014 deposition and the most recent disciplinary actions in 2021. This temporal distance, absent additional evidence of a causal link, undermined any inference that his testimony was the reason for later adverse actions. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence to bridge this gap or otherwise demonstrate retaliatory motive.

The case is No. 21 C 3723.

Judge: Kocoras, C.

Attorneys: Richard Paul Long (Long Meihofer) for Franklin D. Morris, Jr. Claire Welch (Littler Mendelson) for Chicago Central Pacific Railroad Co.

Companies: Chicago Central Pacific Railroad Co.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation EmployeeLeave Procedure IllinoisNews