The Seventh Circuit held that the record showed that the officer was fired after conducting an extensive investigation into a prisoner complaint that someone had stolen $100 during his arrest. Further, the officer failed to show that defendant did not honestly believe results of its investigation, which, according to defendant, indicated that plaintiff, as arresting officer, was most likely responsible for the theft.
The fact that the officer had been cleared of the theft accusation by a separate criminal investigation or that the officer was subjected to unfavorable schedule and work assignments after he gave a statement in race discrimination investigation did not require different result because: (1) the officer failed to show that individuals responsible for change in schedule or job assignments played any role in the decision to fire him; and (2) there was some evidence suggesting that the officer might have been responsible for the theft.