Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D. Ind.: Gaming enforcement agent fired over domestic violence incident takes sex bias claims trial, (Jul 29, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She presented evidence that two male colleagues were also found to have violated policies about keeping one's private life unsullied and not bringing discredit on the commission but were not terminated.

A gaming enforcement agent for the Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC), who was fired after she was not forthcoming with law officers who were called to her house after a domestic violence incident with the police lieutenant with whom she lived, will take her Title VII and Section 1983 claims of sex discrimination to trial since evidence that two similarly situated male colleagues were treated more favorably suggested pretext. However, a federal court granted the defendants’ bid for summary judgment on her ADA claims since she never requested an accommodation or indicated the need for one, and even if the official who fired her could have inferred she suffered from a mental health disability based on knowledge that she was a domestic abuse victim and in counseling, the record did not support a finding of but-for causation (Corbin v. Indiana Gaming Commission, No. 1:23-cv-00718-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind. July 24, 2025)).

Domestic violence incident. The employee worked for IGC as a gaming enforcement agent (GEA) since 2006. In June 2021, she lived with a state police lieutenant with whom she was in a relationship. On the night of June 11, the two were involved in a domestic violence incident in which the intoxicated lieutenant pushed her and pinned her against the wall and “popped” her head off a doorframe. She also fell down some stairs and was bleeding.

The lieutenant called the police, and she called family members. When questioned by the officers, she was not fully forthcoming because she was worried that the lieutenant would lose his job. They were both charged with domestic battery. As part of an informal diversion agreement, the employee attended therapy sessions, and the charge was dismissed. She was also diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and PTSD and prescribed medications.

Internal investigation. IGC placed the employee on desk duty when it learned of the June 11 altercation. After the charges were dismissed, its executive director authorized an internal investigation conducted by an assistant director and the HR director. At the time, the employee had no history of discipline and had received only positive evaluations.

During her interview, she admitted that she was not forthcoming when she was interviewed by the police during the early morning hours of June 12. She also admitted that she had violated the “keep my private life unsullied” provision of IGC’s code of ethics and the provisions of the code of conduct addressing discredit on the commission and unlawful acts. She also discussed being a victim of domestic violence and being in therapy.

Terminated. Three officials recommended to the executive director—who was the ultimate decisionmaker as to discipline—that the employee be suspended without pay for 85 hours and transferred to a different casino, while a deputy director recommended that she be terminated. The executive director ultimately decided to terminate her, citing her violation of the codes of conduct and ethics based on her involvement in the domestic violence incident and her admission that she had not been forthcoming with law enforcement.

Lawsuit. The employee brought this action against the IGC, its commissioners, and the executive director alleging gender and disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. In support of her sex discrimination claim, she claimed she was treated less favorably than a male GEA and a male gaming enforcement officer (GEO).

Male comparators. The GEA was the subject of two internal investigations. The first occurred in response to his use of threatening language toward a supervisor, and the second was in response to his being charged with domestic battery. The charge was later dismissed as part of a diversion program, and during IGC’s internal investigation he denied striking his wife unless by accident and suggested she may have gotten a black eye when their truck got stuck in a muddy field. The investigation report also noted there “seems to be some type of informal agreement or understanding between [the couple] not to report issues to the police.” Though the agent was found to have violated the codes of conduct and ethics by bringing discredit on the commission and living an unsullied life, the executive director only suspended him for 170 hours and transferred him to a different casino.

The GEO had been disciplined on five previous occasions, and one of the investigations involved allegations that he submitted an inaccurate probable cause affidavit to a prosecutor in connection with an arrest. While the investigation ultimately could not prove that he was lying, the incident “made [leadership] lose faith with him as a gaming control officer.” The executive director found that he violated several sections of IGC policies but only suspended him for 85 hours and reassigned him to a GEA position.

Proper comparators. The court rejected IGC’s contention that the men were not proper comparators. First, while they did not all share the same direct supervisor, the executive director was the ultimate decision-maker regarding the discipline imposed with respect to all three. And while the GEO did not hold the exact same position as the employee, a jury could find he was subject to the same polices as her since he was subject to the same chain of command, disciplinary process, and code of conduct.

“Comparably serious” conduct. A jury could find that their misconduct was “comparably serious.” All three were found to have violated provisions of the codes of conduct and ethics about keeping one's private life unsullied and not bringing discredit on the Commission, among others. While IGC argued that neither of the men were found to have lied while the employee admitted to not being forthright, “[t]his requires too much of the comparator test—precise overlap is not necessary in analyzing whether a comparator's conduct is ‘comparably serious.’"

Pretext. The evidence of unequal treatment also cast doubt on the IGC’s contention that it terminated the employee because she was involved in a domestic altercation and was not forthcoming during an interview with the law enforcement officers. A reasonable jury could conclude that IGC treated her more harshly than it treated males who committed comparable violations, that its proffered reason for her termination was pretextual, and that the executive director terminated her based on her gender. And because she survived summary judgment on her Title VII claim, she also did so as to her Section 1983 claim against the executive director.

Disability bias claim fails. However, she could not show she was terminated because of her disability. Significantly, both the executive director and the deputy director who recommended her termination each testified that they were not aware that she suffered from anxiety, depression, or PTSD. Moreover, even if the executive director could have inferred that she was suffering from a mental health disability based on knowledge that she was a domestic abuse victim and was in counseling, she did not present evidence from which a jury could find that a mental health disability was the but-for cause of her termination.

No failure to accommodate. Summary judgment was also warranted as to her failure-to-accommodate claim. It was undisputed that she never indicated that she needed any accommodations, and there was also no indication that she could not have asked for an accommodation if she did require one. “Because no reasonable jury could find that IGC was aware of [the employee’s] need for accommodation, IGC had no obligation to engage in the interactive accommodation process,” concluded the court.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-00718-JPH-MG.

Judge: Hanlon, J.

Attorneys: Ryan C. Fox (Fox Williams & Sink) for Tiffany Corbin. Gustavo Angel Jimenez, Office of the Indiana Attorney General, for Indiana Gaming Commission.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge IndividualRights PublicEmployees IndianaNews