By Mark Anderson and Katrina Thornton
In Smith v. Cook County, an Illinois court dismissed an African American probation officer’s lawsuit claiming the County denied his request for an adjusted schedule because of his race and active participation in his labor union. The court dismissed Officer Jason Smith’s lawsuit, finding that neither Smith’s race nor his union activity was the basis for the employer’s denial of his request to adjust his schedule.
Smith asked his supervisor if he could work a compressed schedule, which would allow him to work four ten-hour shifts instead of five eight-hour shifts. After Smith’s request was denied, Smith sued the County for discrimination and retaliation. Smith argued the County discriminated against him based on his race, because a white colleague made a similar request for an adjusted schedule that was granted. Smith also claimed the County retaliated against him in denying his request because of his active involvement with his union as a former shop steward, Vice President, and then President.
Smith argued that the County’s denial of a schedule change harmed him because if his request had been granted then he would have been able to attend a voluntary training session that would have made him eligible for a pay raise.
The County asked the court to dismiss Smith’s claims, arguing that its actions had nothing to do with Smith’s race or his union activity. It argued that although a white colleague’s request for an adjusted schedule had been granted two years earlier, the circumstances were different. Smith was not denied training that was provided to all employees. Rather, Smith wanted to participate in a voluntary program that may have slightly increased his pay. The County’s actions did not negatively impact Smith’s employment because he continued to work the same shifts, he had been working for thirteen years and received the same salary and benefits. Smith was not demoted and did not suffer a pay loss after he sued the County.
The court agreed with the County and denied Smith a trial, essentially ruling that not everything that makes an employee unhappy is worthy of a lawsuit. The court held that the County, “didn’t create an injury or harm, it just failed to produce a perk.” Finally, the Court held, even if Smith had been able to establish that he had been harmed, the juvenile justice system where Smith worked operated Monday through Friday and, under the CBA, all employees were expected to work Monday through Friday, eight hours per day. Based on these facts, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that denial of a request to work four 10-hour shifts was discriminatory or retaliatory.
The learning point from this case is that both discrimination and retaliation claims require a showing of an adverse action. In other words, the employee has to have suffered some kind of harm to have a basis for a lawsuit. Here, however, the employer’s decision to not grant Smith’s preferred schedule did not create any serious harm. Not every perceived slight or petty annoyance with management justifies the filing of a lawsuit.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Gender and Race Discrimination Claims and Union Activities**
