Timothy Upchurch, a longtime correctional officer at Indiana’s Correctional Industrial Facility, alleged that he was subjected to race discrimination and retaliation after a series of disciplinary actions and missed promotions. Upchurch, who is Black, had worked for the Indiana Department of Correction for more than three decades and was promoted to lieutenant in 2015. In 2019, however, he was demoted to officer following an investigation that concluded he either repeated or failed to report a colleague’s inappropriate harassment. Upchurch denied involvement, but the investigator credited another officer’s account.
Following his demotion, Upchurch received multiple reprimands for refusing mandatory overtime, taking unauthorized leave, and allegedly possessing chewing tobacco. Between 2019 and 2021, he applied unsuccessfully for over twenty promotions. Many of these denials stemmed from a Department policy that rendered employees ineligible for promotion within twelve months of discipline. For the few openings outside that window, wardens selected other candidates they deemed more qualified, often from higher-security facilities.
Upchurch filed several EEOC charges and brought suit under Title VII, claiming the Department’s actions were racially motivated and retaliatory. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The Court emphasized that the Department’s explanations for its actions — the neutral application of the discipline-based promotion policy and the documented qualifications of the chosen candidates — were supported by the record and not shown to be pretextual. Upchurch conceded to some of the underlying conduct, such as refusing overtime and taking unauthorized leave, which undercut his claim that the discipline was wholly fabricated. The Court found Upchurch’s reliance on comparators unavailing because the individuals he identified were not similarly situated in material aspects of employment; they differed in job rank, disciplinary history, and/or relevant responsibilities. Moreover, the Court stressed that allegations of “unfair” or “harsh” treatment do not establish pretext without evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were false or that discrimination was the real motive.
The Seventh Circuit also rejected the retaliation claim, holding that temporal proximity between Upchurch’s EEOC complaints and later discipline was insufficient without evidence that decisionmakers knew of his protected activity. In sum, the Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that race discrimination or retaliation caused Upchurch’s demotion, discipline, or non-promotions, and upheld the district court’s dismissal of his claims.
Upchurch v. Indiana Dept. of Correction, 2025 WL 2088910 (7th Cir. 2025).