The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-3749•Lorraine C. East v. Laporte County Sheriff’s Department
11-3749Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitMay 10, 2012
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 9, 2012 *
Decided May 10, 2012
Before
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 11-3749
LORRAINE C. EAST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAPORTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Hammond Division.
No. 2:10-cv-172
Andrew P. Rodovich,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Lorraine East, a former county jail guard, sued her employer and various county
officials under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that she was fired
because she is black and disabled. A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, ruled after a
bench trial in favor of the defendants, finding that East failed to show either that she could
perform the essential functions of her job (as required for relief under the ADA) or that race
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 11-3749 Page 2
was the reason for her termination.
On appeal East’s arguments boil down to an attack on the district court’s resolution
of conflicting evidence and credibility determinations, which this court reviews only for
clear error. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985); RK Co. v. See, 622
F.3d 846, 852 (7th Cir. 2010). There is no clear error here. The judge sufficiently justified his
decision and addressed the arguments East now raises. To the extent that East also charges
the judge with bias against her, nothing in the record suggests that he exhibited the “high
degree of favoritism or antagonism” that would make “fair judgment impossible.” See Liteky
v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.