Lily Abebe, a Black woman of Ethiopian origin employed as a dental assistant at Eskenazi Health, sued her employer under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming that a low 2018 performance review (which denied her a merit raise) reflected race and national-origin discrimination, and that her placement on a Performance Improvement Plan shortly after she contacted the EEOC constituted retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Abebe had not identified proper comparators who were similarly situated yet treated more favorably, and that the withdrawn Performance Improvement Plan was not a materially adverse action and lacked evidence of causation beyond suspicious timing.
Carlton Reives, a Black former Illinois State Police special agent, sued the ISP under Title VII, claiming race discrimination based on a sixty-day suspension imposed after an internal investigation found he had submitted false inspection reports and a memorandum about voluntary overtime work, and based on downgraded ratings on his 2016 performance evaluation that lowered his promotion ranking. The district court granted summary judgment to the ISP, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Reives failed to identify a similarly situated non-Black comparator treated more favorably, as his partner was charged only with a lesser infraction for attending a wake while on duty after submitting truthful reports. It further held that the performance evaluation downgrade was not an adverse employment action because Reives remained certified for promotion and the lower ranking produced no demonstrated tangible effect on his career prospects or compensation.
Pablo Hidalgo-Sanchez and Luis F. Gomez were convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin of conspiring to distribute large quantities of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine as part of a Milwaukee-based drug-trafficking organization that imported drugs and exported proceeds through hidden vehicle compartments. Hidalgo-Sanchez appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence, improper venue, and the lack of a limiting jury instruction, while Gomez appealed the government's introduction of bolstering testimony from a law-enforcement witness. The Seventh Circuit affirmed both convictions, holding that Hidalgo-Sanchez's claims identified no reversible error and that, although the bolstering testimony was improper, Gomez had not preserved the objection and the error did not rise to plain error given the strength of the remaining evidence.
In United States v. Tyshawn Swinney, the case concerned whether Chicago police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and pat-down of Swinney after an anonymous 911 caller reported seeing a man pull a large gun from his pocket and enter a liquor store. Officers arrived minutes later, observed Swinney matching the caller’s description of clothing and location, searched him, and recovered a loaded .45-caliber pistol, resulting in his conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Swinney’s motion to suppress, ruling that the tip was reliable because it was a contemporaneous eyewitness account of observed criminal activity conveyed through the 911 system (with the caller’s number recorded), the details were corroborated by officers on scene, and these factors established reasonable suspicion under Navarette v. California without needing further independent verification of the gun itself.
Ashaki Paschall and Gerald Ragland, former machine operators at Tube Processing Corporation, sued the company under Title VII, alleging they faced a hostile work environment based on sex and race. Paschall described explicit sexual comments and racial slurs from coworkers Benash and Odom; Ragland claimed exposure to racial harassment, though he did not personally witness or experience most of the cited conduct. The district court granted summary judgment to Tube Processing, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish employer liability because they did not report all incidents, and the company responded to the complaints it received by disciplining the employees involved—suspending Odom for three days and issuing a written warning to Benash—with no further similar conduct reported afterward. The court also noted that conduct not directed at Ragland could not support his claim, and the evidence did not show the employer was negligent in addressing unreported matters such as political attire or flags.
In 2003, Michael Gamboa was convicted by a federal jury in North Dakota of multiple drug and firearm offenses and received a mandatory life sentence after the court determined that three prior state drug convictions qualified as predicate “felony drug offenses” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). After unsuccessful direct appeal and multiple § 2255 motions, Gamboa filed a new § 2241 habeas petition claiming that Mathis v. United States (2016) rendered his Minnesota and North Dakota convictions invalid predicates because the state statutes were categorically broader than the federal definition in 21 U.S.C. § 802(44). The district court denied relief, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Gamboa had not shown his claim was previously unavailable. The court reasoned that the governing categorical approach (from Taylor and Descamps) and arguments about indivisibility and overbroad drug schedules were already available at the time of his initial § 2255 motion, so the “saving clause” gateway to § 2241 did not apply.
criminal lawprocedurefederal power
Affiliations
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — appointed by Ronald Reagan
District Court, N.D. Indiana — appointed by Ronald Reagan
.png?width=900)