Michael Shreffler started working as an officer in the Kankakee, Illinois Police Department in 2009. From 2013 through 2017, he received several written reprimands and one-day suspensions for violating various Department rules. Among other issues, Shreffler had posted offensive Facebook comments and failed to properly search an arrestee who hid a handgun under the seat of his patrol car.
In February 2018, Shreffler posted comments on Facebook accusing the Kankakee mayor of corruption and the Department of “racially motivated” hiring decisions after it promoted a black officer instead of two white officers. On February 23, 2018, the Department notified Shreffler that it was investigating his posts. Following the inquiry, Chief Price Dumas issued Shreffler a five-day suspension, which he grieved.
On March 29, 2018, during an active-shooter training at a local school, an officer overheard Shreffler calling Dumas a racial slur and threatening violence against him after Shreffler learned that the chief had spoken to Shreffler’s wife at her workplace. The officer reported the incident to Dumas, leading to an investigation by the city inspector. The inspector interviewed officers, including Shreffler, and concluded that “a disparaging statement that included the n-word was made and directed against the Chief of Police,” but the “exact context of the statement cannot be confirmed.”
On May 23, 2018, Dumas notified Shreffler that the Department would conduct a formal inquiry of his use of racial epithets and threats. On May 29, 2018, Shreffler, his union attorney, the union president, Dumas, and Deputy Chief Willie Hunt attended the inquiry, where the chief presented and reviewed a last-chance agreement and a notice of termination. If Shreffler agreed to the agreement, he could continue working subject to its terms. If he did not, Dumas would recommend that the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners terminate his employment. The notice stated that, considering Shreffler’s past disciplinary record, his use of “racially charged language” and threats rose to the level of “gross misconduct,” a terminable offense under the County’s employee handbook. Shreffler rejected the agreement.
On June 12, 2018, the Board voted unanimously to terminate Shreffler’s employment. Shreffler did not attend the meeting and later claimed that he was never told he could attend nor was he given the date or time. The Union filed a grievance over his termination and referred the matter to arbitration. On July 18, 2023, the Arbitrator determined that the City had just cause for the termination.
Shreffler sued the Department and Dumas, claiming his termination violated due process protections, federal anti-discrimination laws, and the First Amendment. The district court granted the defendant’s summary judgment. Shreffler appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision.
The Court held that neither the Department nor Dumas violated Shreffler’s due process rights. Shreffler alleged that the Department did not follow statutory requirements for providing notice of termination proceedings. The Court rejected that claim, noting that that even if there was uncertainty about how closely the Department followed the requirements, a violation of state law does not inherently satisfy a federal due process claim. Shreffler was entitled to notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence collected, and an opportunity to tell his side of the story, not a full trial. The Department satisfied all three elements: it provided him with notice of the formal inquiry, Dumas explained the charges against him, and he had the opportunity to respond. In addition, following his termination, Shreffler’s grievance was arbitrated pursuant to the Union’s collective bargaining agreement, further evidence that due process had not been denied.
The Court rejected Shreffler’s claim that the Department and Dumas “terminated him because he is white.” Shreffler provided no evidence that his race was a “motivating factor” in the Department’s decision. He did not show that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated non-white colleagues, nor did he present “all available evidence that a reasonable jury could find that the relevant decision was motivated” by his race. Even though the Board was the ultimate decisionmaker on Shreffler’s termination, he failed to argue that it discriminated against him. Instead, he made haphazard, unsubstantiated accusations targeting Dumas, the mayor, and other black police officers and elected officials.
The Court also found that Shreffler was not fired in retaliation for his February 2018 Facebook comments. To prove retaliation, an employee must show that his or her protected activity caused the employer’s adverse action. Shreffler offered no evidence that his 2018 Facebook posts were connected to Dumas’ recommendation, or the Board’s decision to terminate his employment. In fact, there was “no indication that the Board was even aware of these posts.” Absent concrete evidence, the Court looked at the timing of Shreffler’s termination and concluded it was not suspicious. Not only had several months passed between the Facebook posts and the Board decision, but Shreffler’s comments on March 29 were a “significant intervening event” in the causal chain.
Shreffler v. City of Kankakee, Illinois, No. 21-3376, 2024 WL 1826976 (7th Cir., 2024).