Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ind.: Bus driver, disciplined 43 times, cannot show race, age discrimination, (Nov 17, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Before she was fired, however, 13 months had passed since her most recent disciplinary incident.

A bus driver in her 50s, fired from her position with Fort Wayne Public Transportation, Inc., following 45 total policy violations and 43 separate occasions of discipline, cannot establish either Title VII race discrimination or ADEA age discrimination, a federal district court in Indiana found. The former driver abandoned her age discrimination claim, and though she denied that she committed all eight policy violations the employer alleged on her final day of work, she admitted to the underlying conduct of most of them in her deposition, and thus could not show that she performed her job to the employer’s expectations (Graham v. Citilink, No. 1:24-CV-370-HAB (N.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2025)).

Bus driver. The plaintiff, a Black woman in her 50s, was hired by Fort Wayne Public Transportation, Inc., which does business as Citilink, in 2007.

Disciplinary record. During the nearly 16 years she worked for the transit agency, Citilink disciplined her on 43 separate occasions for 45 total policy violations. These included 12 suspensions.

Before she was fired, 13 months had passed since her most recent disciplinary incident.

August 16 incidents. However, shortly after 7:00 a.m. on August 16, 2023, the driver was caught on camera using her mobile phone and wearing ear buds while actively driving with passengers on the bus. Moments later, she was captured watching a video on her phone while driving. These constituted her first two violations of the morning, and the only two to which she owned up unequivocally.

FMLA leave request same day. Things escalated at 7:36 a.m., according to the court. She informed dispatch that she needed to take FMLA leave and have a replacement take over for the day. She asserted that Citilink refused to take her information, resulting in an effective denial despite having prior approval. Citilink, conversely, said her supervisor informed her that she just needed to check for approval.

Raised voice in front of passenger. This argument led the driver to raise her voice in front of a passenger boarding the bus, which Citilink deemed “[c]onduct unbecoming a Citilink employee.” At that moment, she also may have misreported to dispatch that no passengers were at that stop.

Insubordination? Later, she disobeyed an order from dispatch to return to a prior stop to pick up a passenger, and Citilink labeled this insubordination. She was also allegedly insubordinate when she refused to park a bus as instructed, although she denied this.

These August 16 incidents spanned less than 30 minutes, and not long after them, a replacement driver took over for the plaintiff.

Last alleged violation. The driver’s last alleged violation occurred a few hours later when a Citilink HR director contacted her to discuss her FMLA leave. When asked why she needed to take leave, she declined to answer because she thought the question violated HIPAA. Citilink called this refusal both insubordination and conduct unbecoming, but the driver called back later to say there was a misunderstanding.

Discharge and lawsuit. On August 18, 2023, Citilink fired the driver for the policy violations of two days prior.

One year later, she sued in Indiana state court, alleging age and race discrimination. Citilink removed the action to federal district court and moved for summary judgment against the ADEA and Title VII claims.

ADEA claim abandoned. The court first granted summary judgment against the former driver’s age discrimination claim. In response to Citilink’s summary judgment motion, she had abandoned the claim.

Title VII race discrimination claim. Turning to her Title VII race discrimination claim, the court initially observed that, to set forth a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, the former driver must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she performed her job to her employer’s expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) one or more similarly situated individuals outside her protected class received better treatment. Her case faltered on the second element.

Job expectations. The court concluded that the driver’s job performance did not meet Citilink’s expectations. She undisputedly committed multiple policy violations on her final day of work, and though she denied that she committed all eight of the alleged violations, she admitted to the underlying conduct of most of them in her deposition. She also did not deny that Citilink disciplined her more than 40 times in the preceding 15 years, suspending her 12 times. Though more than a year had passed between the most recent incident and her final day of work, that did not “render her disciplinary history irrelevant to assessing her job performance.” Nor did it “reduce the potency of the volume of violations she committed at once,” concluded the court.

Her Title VII claim thus also failed as a matter of law.

Fort Wayne City Ordinance claim. Finally, observing that neither party mentioned in its summary judgment briefs the former driver’s allegation that Citilink also violated a Fort Wayne City Ordinance, the federal district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim and remanded to the state circuit court from which the matter was initially removed.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-370-HAB.

Judge: Brady, H.

Attorneys: Samuel L. Bolinger (Law Offices of Samuel L. Bolinger) for Marcy D. Graham. Michelle K. Floyd (Rothberg Logan & Warsco) for Citilink.

Companies: Citilink

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discharge PublicEmployees IndianaNews