By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Carothers v. County of Cook, the Seventh Circuit found that a black employee at a juvenile detention center could not move forward with her Title VII race discrimination claim, despite evidence that her supervisor had told a group of employees he would “take them to the woodshed” and made a problematic comment about Malcom X. In her complaint, the employee alleged not only race discrimination, but also disability discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The Court found that because the statements were not made by the ultimate decision maker, the woodshed statement did not hold racial connotations, and the Malcom X comment was made three years prior, the County’s motion for summary judgment was appropriate.
Carmen Carothers began working for the Cook County Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) as an Administrative Assistant 1/Hearing Officer in August 2005. Around June 22, 2009, Carothers was involved in a physical altercation with a juvenile detainee during a riot, and injured her hand. After the injury, Carothers applied for worker’s compensation and took a leave of absence. From July 16, 2009, until March 15, 2010, Carothers and Human Resources went back and forth regarding the availability of positions to allow Carothers to return to the JDC. On March 16, 2010, Carothers was placed under William Kern as an Administrative Assistant 1/Hearing Officer. During this time, Carothers had advised her supervisors that her doctor had not cleared her to “work with children at this time” because she had developed an anxiety disorder after the riot altercation. Carothers requested to be placed in a position where she did not have to interact with children, and the request was denied.
On December 29, 2010, Carothers became nauseous, fainted, and was taken away from the JDC by ambulance. Four days later, Carothers again indicated that she could not work with children.. Human Resources advised Carothers to apply for permanent disability. For over four months, Carothers and HR discussed whether or not the proper paperwork for the permanent disability application had been submitted. Carothers maintained that she had completed the paperwork, HR believed she was missing two specific documents and repeatedly encouraged her to send them in. After Carothers failure to return these documents, the County terminated her in May 2011, finding that she had accumulated over ten unauthorized absences and failed to follow instructions. In August of 2012, Carothers brought suit.
The Seventh Circuit found the disability claim was unsubstantiated because demonstrating a substantial limitation in performing the unique aspects of a single specific job is not sufficient to establish that a person is substantially limited in the major life activity of working. While Carothers had presented evidence that her anxiety disorder prevented her from interacting with juveniles at the JDC, this was a unique aspect of the single specific job of working as a hearing officer, and no evidence was presented that the anxiety disorder would prevent her from engaging in any other line of occupation. The Court further dismissed the gender discrimination claim for lack of evidence.
On the race discrimination claim, the Court found that the direct evidence Carothers offered of a supervisor’s comment of taking a group of black workers “to the woodshed” did not have racial undertones. The Court used the Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms in concluding that the phrase did not reference the antebellum South, but rather referred to the former practice of taking “a naughty child to a woodshed to be punished, out of sight of other people.” Though the Court found the Malcom X comment by the same supervisor problematic, it was too far removed from Carothers termination to directly point to a discriminatory reason for the discharge.
In summary, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court in finding that Carothers could not pursue her claim of race discrimination against the County because she offered no direct or indirect evidence that her termination was racially motivated.
One of the key pieces of this case is the adequacy of the facts to show race discrimination. Carothers had very thin facts, including only two examples, to show that her termination was based on race.
The first comment did not appear to actually be a racist expression. And while the second comment was racially insensitive, the court found that too much time had passed, three years in fact, between the time the comment was made and when she was terminated. This thin, remote evidence clearly persuaded the court.
The disability piece created an interesting spin to this case though. Unlike the race discrimination, I actually believe Carothers raised several facts to show that the JDC were not supportive of her workplace injury and subsequent disability, and created unnecessary hurdles to receiving specific workplace accommodations and in the filing of her disability paperwork. At a minimum, the JDC certainly were not doing her any favors. These facts should have been enough to get her disability discrimination claim through summary judgment and to trial.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Racial Discrimination. **
