In See v. Illinois Gaming Board, No. 19-2392 (March 21, 2022), the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the Illinois Gaming Board on a former law enforcement officer’s claims of First Amendment retaliation or disability discrimination. The gaming board had placed the officer on administrative leave after he showed signs of paranoia and other irrational behaviors.
The gaming board employs state police officers to regulate riverboat and video gambling in Illinois. The plaintiff worked as a gaming special agent for the gaming board at a Rock Island casino, investigating criminal gambling activity. He also served as a union representative.
In 2016, the plaintiff expressed concern about the gaming board’s hiring and promotion practices, claiming that state police officers were promoted more frequently than board employees. He requested documentation of past grievances in his capacity as a union representative.
The plaintiff then went on vacation for two weeks; while on vacation, he advised the gaming board’s labor relations liaison and law enforcement captain that he was filing a formal grievance. He emailed a copy of his grievance to these parties, which was 79 pages long, and alleged corruption within the gaming board and the Illinois government. He also claimed that his supervisor at the casino was spreading false rumors about him and his wife in retaliation for the planned grievance.
In follow-up emails, the plaintiff pleaded for help, stating that his wife was seriously afraid of retaliation and that the state police might harm them. He insisted that the supervisor continued spreading rumors and that the Illinois State Police would try to send someone to harm their family physically. The plaintiff then showed up unexpectedly at the casino while still on vacation to file his grievance; he argued with his supervisor while delivering the grievance until the captain called and advised him to leave the casino.
In response to the plaintiff’s perceived paranoia and irrational behavior, the captain placed him on administrative leave. The captain had a local police department deliver notice of the placement on leave to the plaintiff at his home and advise him that he could not return to work until he completed a fitness-for-duty exam. The officers also collected the plaintiff’s service items, including his gun. The plaintiff then took and passed a fitness-for-duty exam to return to work.
The plaintiff then filed suit seeking damages from the gaming board, the captain, and other officials. He alleged retaliation against his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and accused the gaming board of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on both claims. On appeal, the 7th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, finding that the evidence supported the defendants’ concerns about the plaintiff’s mental state based on his behavior and did not support a finding of retaliation. The 7th Circuit further found that the ADA permits fitness-for-duty examinations concerning public safety employees, which eliminated the plaintiff’s ADA claim. HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.
Hall Benefits Law, LLC
Latest posts by Hall Benefits Law, LLC (see all)
- March 2024 | HBL Attorneys Visit Atlanta HQ - March 28, 2024