Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—7th Cir.: Race discrimination suit filed by Black employee of Indiana correctional facility properly dismissed, (Jul 28, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Court finds insufficient evidence of race discrimination or retaliation in demotion, discipline, and non-promotion of longtime corrections officer.

The Seventh Circuit has upheld summary judgment for the Indiana Department of Correction in a Title VII lawsuit brought by a longtime corrections officer who alleged race discrimination and retaliation following his demotion and subsequent disciplinary actions. The court concluded that the record did not support a reasonable inference that the department’s decisions were motivated by unlawful bias or retaliatory intent (Upchurch v. State of Indiana, No. 24-1355 (7th Cir. July 25, 2025)).

Demotion followed misconduct investigation. The employee, a Black corrections officer with over three decades of service at the Correctional Industrial Facility (CIF), was demoted from lieutenant to officer in January 2019 after an internal investigation determined that he had repeated an inappropriate comment made by a subordinate during a phone call about another officer. The warden accepted the investigator’s recommendation for a two-level demotion, based on corroborating witness accounts. The employee denied repeating the comment but offered no contradictory evidence that would undermine the credibility of the report or demonstrate that the decision was motivated by race.

In addition to the demotion, the officer received three written reprimands over the next 18 months, including for refusing mandatory overtime and taking unauthorized leave, as well as one 10-day suspension for allegedly bringing chewing tobacco into the facility. He also applied unsuccessfully for over twenty promotions at multiple Department of Correction facilities during this period.

No pretext shown. The court determined that the department had offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse actions and that the employee failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext. For the demotion, the department relied on the results of the internal investigation, which included witness statements supporting the misconduct allegations. The employee disputed the findings but did not establish that the decisionmakers lacked an honest belief in the investigator’s conclusions.

The employee similarly failed to show that the written reprimands or suspension were imposed for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. While he acknowledged the conduct underlying the reprimands, he argued that mitigating circumstances, such as childcare obligations and unresolved leave requests, should have excused his behavior. The court held that absent evidence that these explanations were known to and disregarded by the decisionmakers for discriminatory reasons, the employee’s assertions were insufficient to support an inference of pretext.

Regarding the suspension, the employee contested the accusation that he brought chewing tobacco into the facility, but the record indicated that the decision was based on a review of surveillance footage, which the employee did not attempt to refute with contrary evidence.

Promotion denials tied to disciplinary history. Most of the employee’s unsuccessful promotion applications were submitted within twelve months of his formal discipline, rendering him ineligible under established Department of Correction policy. The employee identified a narrow window between March and July 2020 when he was not under disciplinary restriction and applied for two positions at CIF. In both cases, the warden selected external candidates with greater supervisory experience. The court found the employer’s explanations credible and held that the employee had not demonstrated that his qualifications were so superior as to suggest discriminatory treatment.

In one instance, the employee pointed to another employee who received a promotion shortly after a suspension, suggesting inconsistent application of the discipline-based ineligibility policy. However, the court noted the absence of any evidence establishing the timing of that employee’s application or identifying the decisionmaker responsible for the hire. Without such details, the comparison was deemed insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination.

No causal link between complaints and adverse actions. The employee also asserted retaliation, citing several prior complaints of race discrimination he made to supervisors and in administrative filings. The court acknowledged that he had engaged in protected activity but found no evidence that decisionmakers were aware of his complaints at the time they made the challenged employment decisions. One statement by the warden suggesting that the employee had been a hindrance since her arrival was deemed too vague to support a retaliatory inference, particularly in the absence of evidence linking it to the complaints.

The only instance of close temporal proximity, between a February 2019 discrimination complaint and a same day written reprimand, was found insufficient to support a retaliation claim. The court credited the employer’s explanation that the reprimand was based on conduct that occurred weeks earlier and had been reported to the supervisor prior to the complaint.

Procedural challenge over exhibits. On appeal, the employee challenged the district court’s decision not to consider certain factual assertions included in exhibits to his opposition brief, rather than in the brief itself. The appellate court upheld the district court’s enforcement of local rules requiring factual citations to appear within the body of the brief and found no showing of prejudice, noting that the arguments and comparators discussed on appeal had already been addressed by the lower court.

Correct defendant identified and substituted. The court also rejected the employee’s argument that the district court erred in substituting the Indiana Department of Correction for the State of Indiana as the defendant. The court explained that the proper Title VII defendant in a case involving state employment is the specific agency with actual hiring and firing authority. Because the Department of Correction, not the State itself, controlled employment decisions at CIF, substitution was appropriate.

Considering the record, the Seventh Circuit concluded that no reasonable jury could find that race discrimination or retaliation motivated the employment decisions at issue. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in full.

The case is No. 24-1355.

Judge: St. Eve, A.

Attorneys: Richard L. Darst (Cohen, Garelick & Glazier) for Timothy Upchurch. James Alex Emerson (Coots, Henke & Wheeler) for State of Indiana.

Companies: State of Indiana

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation Procedure IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews