Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ill.: Transit bus operator’s race, national-origin bias claims fail over insubordination discipline, (Sep 28, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The employee’s proposed comparators engaged in different misconduct or responded differently to counseling, while a possible delay in discipline did not establish discriminatory pretext.

A Hispanic and Mexican American bus operator for a public transit agency could not demonstrate that race or national origin caused his discipline and removal from a supervisor pool, an Illinois federal court ruled. Granting summary judgment to the transit agency, the court found that the employee’s disrespectful and insubordinate conduct supplied a legitimate reason for the discipline and that his proposed comparators were not similarly situated. A possible violation of a union agreement’s disciplinary timeline likewise did not establish pretext. The court also rejected his Illinois negligent spoliation claim concerning a missing recording of radio communications (Garcia v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 20 C 7194 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2026)).

Supervisor pool. The employee joined the transit agency as a part-time bus operator in 2003, became full-time in 2005, and qualified as a pool supervisor in August 2019. Pool supervisors remained classified as bus operators but could work as acting supervisors when needed. They were required to communicate professionally with coworkers and management and follow detailed radio procedures, including keeping communications concise and maintaining an even tone.

In September 2019, the employee responded to a bus incident. When the control center asked him to confirm his location, he responded, “I heard you” and “I told you I was here,” rather than using the prescribed radio terminology. A bus service manager monitoring the communications considered his response “very rude” and later testified that he raised his voice as though the controller were bothering him.

The manager contacted him by telephone and told him his response and tone were improper. According to her, he repeatedly spoke over her, became belligerent, and complained that the demands were “too much” to handle. The employee maintained that the manager was harassing him with repeated calls and acknowledged that he did not use “the best choice of words.”

Discipline. The dispute continued when the employee met with management at a bus garage. The transit agency maintained that he was yelling and pointing his finger at the manager, while he said she misinterpreted his hand gestures as insubordination. Another manager who witnessed the exchange reported that the employee spoke in a “threatening manner” while the bus service manager remained professional.

The employee was removed from service and sent for drug testing. Following a disciplinary hearing, he received a final written warning and one-day suspension for the behavioral violation. An arbitrator later denied his grievance challenging that discipline.

Because an infraction could result in removal from the supervisor pool, the agency held another hearing in April 2020. Management cited his insubordination and disrespect toward managerial personnel and removed him from the pool. A subsequent grievance was granted in part, with the arbitrator awarding four hours of pay rather than the eight hours sought.

No evidence of pretext. The employee alleged that the agency discriminated against him because of his race and national origin in violation of Title VII. Under Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016), the ultimate question was whether the evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that race or national origin caused the adverse employment action. He could proceed holistically or through the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, but his evidence satisfied neither approach.

The agency offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation: The employee violated workplace rules by acting disrespectfully toward other employees. Citing Flores v. Preferred Technical Group, 182 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 1999), the court noted that insubordination constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discipline. The burden therefore shifted back to the employee to produce evidence of pretext.

The record supported the agency’s explanation. Viewed in the employee’s favor, the evidence showed that he spoke disrespectfully over the radio, repeatedly spoke over the manager during their telephone conversation, and raised his voice during the subsequent meeting. That behavior violated agency rules requiring respectful, professional communication.

Comparators differed. The employee argued that African-American pool supervisors received more favorable treatment for misconduct. But under Napier v. Orchard School Foundation, 137 F.4th 884 (7th Cir. 2025), a comparator must be directly comparable “in all material respects.” His examples did not satisfy that requirement.

One supervisor had been removed for making errors but apologized before returning to a supervisory role. Another, whom the employee believed had been insubordinate, similarly returned after apologizing. Although the latter conduct potentially resembled the employee’s, the apology materially distinguished the situations. Other trainees who allegedly had collisions, struck poles, or tested positive for drugs engaged in misconduct different from his disrespect and insubordination.

The employee also pointed to other pool supervisors whom the bus service manager merely counseled after they spoke disrespectfully. But those employees accepted the counseling and had no further confrontations. By contrast, the employee responded belligerently when counseled, leading to the disciplinary process. They therefore were not appropriate comparators.

Delayed removal. Nor did the timing of his removal from the supervisor pool demonstrate pretext. The union agreement generally required discipline within specified periods after the agency learned of misconduct, and the employee was not removed from the pool until months after the September incident.

Even assuming the delay violated the agreement, that alone did not support an inference of discrimination. The agency explained that it waited for the grievance process concerning the initial discipline to conclude before deciding whether to remove him. Citing Brooks v. Avancez, 39 F.4th 424 (7th Cir. 2022), the court explained that an employer’s error alone does not establish discriminatory pretext absent evidence that other employees were treated differently under the same rule. The employee presented no such evidence.

Looking at the evidence holistically produced the same result. The employee acknowledged that no one mentioned his race or national origin during the disciplinary meetings, and neither his comparators nor the timing of the discipline supported an inference that his protected characteristics caused the adverse actions.

Missing recording. The employee’s negligent spoliation claim also failed. He alleged that the agency should have preserved a recording of the radio communications from the September incident. Under Illinois law, however, he had to establish that the loss of the recording proximately caused his inability to prove the underlying discrimination case.

He could only speculate that the recording might have revealed the speakers’ tones, communication difficulties, and timing. There was no evidence that it would have supported an inference of discrimination. The absence of evidence connecting the missing recording to his inability to prove discrimination was fatal to the claim.

The court therefore granted the transit agency summary judgment on both the Title VII discrimination claim and the negligent spoliation claim.

The case is No. 20 C 7194.

Judge: Kness, J.

Attorneys: Anthony J. Peraica (Anthony J. Peraica & Associates) for Steven Garcia. Kevin R. Gallardo, Chicago Transit Authority Law Department, for Chicago Transit Authority.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination NationalOrigin Discrimination EvidenceDiscovery IllinoisNews