Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ill.: Security officer reassigned shortly after complaining of discrimination advances race, national origin bias claims, (Feb 11, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The security officer, who described himself as “Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, and Puerto Rican,” claimed the majority of the company’s employees were Black.

Citing comments by the supervisor of a “Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, and Puerto Rican” security officer that “we don’t need outsiders messing up what we have” and that it was “hard for a [B]lack business,” along with the employee’s transfer to a location significantly further away after he complained, a federal court in Illinois found his evidence, while sparse, was sufficient to preclude summary judgment against his Title VII and state-law race and national origin discrimination claims. While his retaliations claims also survived summary judgment, the court tossed his defamation claim (Cruz v. Fox Security, Inc., No. 24 C 4035 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2026)).

Hired in March 2023, the self-described “Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, and Puerto Rican” employee alleged that the majority of the company’s staff was Black. During his employment, he alleged he provided the company with the contact information for multiple candidates for various positions with the company, including that of a Hispanic man and a Caucasian woman.

No outsiders. The candidates were either never called, or never interviewed, or told they were overqualified. According to the employee, his supervisor, in January 2024, told him that “we don’t need outsiders messing up what we have” and it was “hard for a [B]lack business.” After telling the supervisor her comments were discriminatory, the employee complained to HR that the comments “contributed to a hostile work environment and reflected racial and ethnic bias.” The company then began reducing the employee’s hours; it never investigated his complaint.

New assignment. In late February 2024, the company told the employee he had been assigned to a new location. While the company claimed its president and CEO was the sole decisionmaker regarding the assignment, the CEO testified that an HR employee was actually responsible. Claiming that the new location was “significantly farther from his home,” the employee refused the assignment.

Discrimination claims. In response to the employee’s race and national origin discrimination claims, the company argued there was no evidence he met performance expectations because it did not maintain evaluations or disciplinary records showing superior performance. Calling this argument ironic, the court pointed out that the company asserted in its Statement of Facts that it “has no record of performance issues or complaints from [Plaintiff’s] supervisors.” At a minimum, said the court, “the absence of any disciplinary or performance issues during the 11 months Plaintiff worked for Defendant raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff met Defendant’s legitimate expectations.”

The company next argued that the employee’s refusal to accept the reassignment was not an adverse employment action. But even if the alleged reduction in hours and relocation of his work did not constitute discharge or constructive discharge, there was evidence these actions had adverse effects on his work hours, compensation, and career prospects and thus there was a triable fact issue as to whether he suffered an adverse action.

Because the employee, however, was unable to show that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably—he simply claimed without any evidentiary support that Black employees “had substantially more favorable work schedules,” that their work schedules were not reduced, and that they were not required to work far from their homes—he failed to present a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Ortiz framework. Turning to the Seventh Circuit’s Ortiz v. Werner Enterprisers, Inc. framework, the court noted that the company argued it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s “separation”— he was routinely reassigned consistent with its standard scheduling practices and his refusal to work the assigned shifts constituted a voluntary separation. But not only did the employee point out that there was no evidence of any “operational need” for his reassignment, the court noted evidence that would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude the company discriminated against him on the basis of his race or national origin.

Indeed, the employee contended that the majority of the company’s employees are African American; he was replaced by an African-American individual; he felt his supervisor was referring to his race or national origin when she said “we don’t need outsiders messing up what we have”; the company failed to conduct any investigation into his complaint about his supervisor’s comments even though its policies require investigations of discrimination complaints; and his work hours were reduced and his job was transferred from his established worksite to a location substantially farther from his home. He further argued that the company’s assertion in its Statement of Facts that there was no evidence he met its legitimate expectations, despite its admissions to the contrary, showed pretext.

Failure to investigate. Not only did the court agree that the company’s shifting descriptions and explanations of the employee’s work performance could support an inference of pretext, but also it pointed out that while the company insisted it did not violate its own policies because it received no written complaint of discrimination, there was nothing in its antidiscrimination policy that required a written complaint. Thus, said the court, the failure to investigate the employee’s verbal complaint of discrimination could violate its policy.

Further, the court found the supervisor’s statement to the employee that “we don’t need outsiders messing up what we have” and that it was “hard for a [B]lack business,” when viewed with the evidence the company replaced the employee with an African-American individual, might reasonably be considered more than a “stray comment.” Based on this evidence, the court denied summary judgment against this claim.

Retaliation. In support of his retaliation claim, the employee alleged that he engaged in protected activity when he orally reported his supervisor’s discriminatory remarks to HR. While the company argued that he never complained about discrimination, his declaration attesting he complained orally about the supervisor’s racially charged remarks was sufficient evidence he lodged an internal complaint with HR, said the court. Because the company never challenged whether his complaint constituted protected activity, the employee sufficiently established that he engaged in protected activity.

Nor was the court persuaded by the company’s contention he could not show a causal link between his protected activity and his reassignment. Here, said the court, there was evidence that within a few weeks of complaining about racial discrimination to HR, the company reduced his hours and reassigned him to a worksite substantially farther from his home. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment against this claim as well.

Defamation. As to the employee’s defamation claim, he alleged the owner’s brother, who was also employed by the company at the time, falsely told “an LSG employee” that he had been fired for sexual harassment, a statement that he should have known was false. In dismissing this claim, the court pointed out that he never attempted to identify what “LSG” was, how he learned about a conversation between an LSG employee and the owner’s brother, or how the owner or company knew about statements made by the owner’s brother, whose position at the company he also did not explain. Noting that the only evidence he relied on to show defamation was inadmissible hearsay, the court granted summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 24 C 4035.

Judge: Fuentes, G.

Attorneys: Mohammed Omar Badwan (Sulaiman Law Group) for Marcius Cruz. Keith L. Spence (Law Office of Keith L. Spence) for Fox Security, Inc.

Companies: Fox Security, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation TortClaims NationalOrigin IllinoisNews GCNNews