Brooks v. City of Kankakee, Illinois

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff-employee’s motion for judgment as matter of law after jury found in favor of defendant-employer in Title VII action, alleging that defendant retaliated against plaintiff by issuing plaintiff letter of reprimand that threatened plaintiff’s employment in response to plaintiff making three prior statements that put police department in bad light. Jury was entitled to conclude that each of plaintiff’s three prior statements included varying degrees of factual falsehoods, where: (1) contrary to defendant’s statement, jury could conclude that there was no basis for plaintiff stating that police had violated any consent decree that had been imposed in prior lawsuit that plaintiff had filed, where there was no consent degree imposed in said prior lawsuit and agreement that had been entered in said lawsuit had expired years before plaintiff had made said statement; (2) plaintiff’s accusation of cover-up by defendant with respect to misconduct by another officer did not square with plaintiff’s own cover-up of said misconduct, and jury could otherwise conclude that plaintiff’s refusal to divulge said misconduct indicated plaintiff’s own lack of good faith; and (3) jury could conclude that plaintiff in prior statement falsely alleged that defendant did not punish other officer for his misconduct. As such, plaintiff’s prior statements were not protected by retaliation provisions of Title VII. Moreover, while Dist. Ct. erred in giving instruction that required jury to find that plaintiff made in good faith all three prior statements at issue in reprimand letter, no remand was required, since jury could find that none of plaintiff’s prior statements had been made in good faith.