Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—N.D. Ill.: Male employee’s sex discrimination claim fails where discipline stemmed from unprofessional conduct, (Jan 6, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

There was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was disciplined because he is male, but rather that the discipline was due to numerous warnings about his unprofessional conduct.

An employer was granted summary judgment against the claims of an Illinois Circuit Court employee following his demotion, after he was found to have violated the court’s policies based on an ongoing contentious personal relationship with a female employee, ruled a federal district court in Illinois. The federal court held that the employee identified no circumstances that might give rise to an inference that the employer had reason to discriminate against men in the workplace, nor did he identify a similarly situated employee. Further, the employee could not show pretext, and there was no evidence to suggest that he was disciplined because he is male, but rather that the discipline was due to numerous warnings about his unprofessional conduct (Kohl v. Davis, No. 20 C 1940 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2024)).

Code of conduct. The plaintiff, a male, worked in the juvenile probation department of an Illinois Circuit Court and had an ongoing relationship with a female employee, who had worked in the adult probation department of the same court system. All employees are bound by the court’s policies, part of which are rules of conduct that each employee must follow, including “showing respect for all employees and their property; not engaging in, nor allowing, any form of discrimination, including harassment against any employee, the public, or the clientele of the Circuit Court, maintaining courteous dealings with the public, all employees, and the clientele of the Circuit Court; and exercising common sense and good judgment.”

The employee had received several promotions during his tenure. The employee and the female coworker had a contentious relationship and were engaged in custody litigation over a child they had together. After both parties wore their court-issued identification during their custody proceeding, which violated the court’s policies, they were reminded by their managers of the policies by which they must abide and that failure to do so may result in discipline up to and including termination. The employee engaged in several other behaviors that violated policy, including disparaging the female coworker in front of other court employees, emailing superiors about the female coworker and the ongoing custody litigation, and making inappropriate comments during a work conference.

Demotion. Eventually, the employee was demoted from his salaried position as unit manager to an hourly position of principal juvenile counselor and suspended without pay for five days. He filed suit in federal court. The court dismissed several of the plaintiff’s claims on motion, and a sole claim of sex discrimination against the chief judge and the executive director of the court in their individual capacities proceeded. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The federal district court addressed the procedural issue under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, assessing whether there were no material facts at issue so that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Sex discrimination claim. The court noted that while sex discrimination claims under the Equal Protection Clause are generally analyzed using the same standard as Title VII claims, the employee must establish the elements of a sex discrimination claim and that any such discrimination was intentional. The court also acknowledged that the parties brought up indirect evidence only, which traditionally involves the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test, but noted that under the Seventh Circuit’s rules, the employee may defeat summary judgment by showing that a reasonable jury could infer discriminatory animus after evaluating the evidence as a whole.

Because the employee was not a minority, a modified McDonnell Douglas test applied, and he needed to show “background circumstances which give rise to an inference of discrimination.” The employee failed that test, as he identified no circumstances that might give rise to an inference that the employer had reason to discriminate against men in the workplace, the court stated.

Comparator. Moreover, the employee failed to identify a similarly situated employee. While the employee and the female coworker were both bound by the same policies, they had completely different reporting structures and supervisors, and there was no evidence that the female coworker was disciplined in the same manner as the employee. “Plaintiff was demoted from a managerial position and suspended for alleged improprieties at work-related trainings and conferences in 2018, which Defendants found violated Circuit Court policies,” the federal court reasoned. “The record does not contain reports that [the female employee] had spoken disparagingly about Plaintiff or inappropriately to others in the same manner as Plaintiff was accused of doing.”

The defendants met their burden of showing that they had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employee’s suspension and demotion, the court continued, with their actions consistent with prior warnings given to him about continued violations of the court’s policies. The employee could not show pretext, and there was no evidence to suggest that he was disciplined because he is male, but rather that the discipline was due to numerous warnings about his unprofessional conduct.

Thus, the federal district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 20 C 1940.

Judge: Hunt, L.

Attorneys: Jeffrey R. Kulwin (Kulwin, Masciopinto & Kulwin) for Adam Kohl. Erin M. Petrolis, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, for Danny Davis. Karen Denise Fox, Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office, for Lake County.

Companies: Lake County

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation IllinoisNews