The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a ruling in the case of Derrick McCoy v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, affirming that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not unlawfully discriminate against McCoy based on his age. This decision, made on July 14, 2026, affects McCoy and other employees in similar situations who may face adverse employment actions and claim age discrimination.
Derrick McCoy, who worked as a Protective Services Officer (PSO) for Paragon Systems, was terminated after an incident at a social security office. Following his termination, Paragon agreed to reinstate McCoy if DHS provided a favorable suitability determination regarding his employment. However, after reviewing the circumstances surrounding McCoy's termination, DHS issued an unfavorable determination, which led McCoy to file a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).
The case began when McCoy was involved in an incident with an unruly customer at the social security office in Chicago. After the incident, which included McCoy taking photos of the customer and failing to follow proper detainment procedures, Paragon Systems terminated him. McCoy sought to challenge this termination through union grievance procedures, which resulted in a settlement that required a favorable determination from DHS for reinstatement.
Chris Campbell, a Personnel Security Specialist at DHS, reviewed McCoy's case and recommended an unfavorable determination. This recommendation was ultimately approved by Dina Martinez, the Security Operations Branch Chief at DHS. Notably, Martinez was unaware of McCoy's age when making her decision, which became a significant point in the court's ruling.
In the ruling, Judge Kirsch stated, "The record contains no evidence that DHS’s suitability determination was made because of McCoy’s age." The court affirmed the lower court's decision, which had granted summary judgment in favor of DHS, concluding that McCoy failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.
The court's decision hinged on several factors. McCoy, who was over 40 years old at the time of the incident, argued that he was meeting his employer's legitimate expectations. However, the court noted that he provided no evidence to support this claim regarding DHS, as his employment was technically with Paragon. The court also pointed out that McCoy could not demonstrate that similarly situated, younger employees were treated more favorably.
McCoy attempted to identify another PSO, Lattrice Haywood, as a comparator, but the court found that he had not disclosed her name during the discovery process, which limited his ability to use her as evidence in his case. The court ruled that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Haywood as a comparator.
Additionally, the court emphasized that McCoy's claim failed under both the McDonnell Douglas framework and the Ortiz holistic approach. The evidence did not support the notion that age discrimination was a factor in the unfavorable suitability determination made by DHS. The court reiterated that stray remarks made by Inspector Jamie Taylor, who was not involved in the decision-making process, were insufficient to establish a discriminatory motive.
The implications of this ruling are significant for employees who may feel they have been discriminated against due to age. The court's decision reinforces the need for clear evidence linking age to adverse employment actions. It highlights the importance of following proper procedures and documentation when addressing employment disputes.
Looking ahead, this ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving age discrimination claims against employers. It underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to provide substantial evidence that directly ties their age to any adverse employment actions they experience.
As for McCoy, he may have limited options for further appeal, as the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the lower court's ruling. There are currently no related cases pending that could influence this decision.