A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of an age discrimination lawsuit brought by a former security officer against the Department of Homeland Security.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on July 14, 2026, that Derrick McCoy failed to provide evidence showing that an unfavorable employment suitability determination by federal officials was motivated by his age. Circuit Judge Kirsch delivered the opinion for a three-judge panel that also included Judges Easterbrook and Scudder.
McCoy originally worked as a Protective Services Officer for Paragon Systems, a private firm that contracted with the Federal Protective Service—a component of the Department of Homeland Security—to provide security at a Social Security Administration field office in Chicago.
Paragon terminated McCoy following an incident involving an unruly customer at the office. According to court records, Federal Protective Service Inspector Jamie Taylor reported that McCoy failed to use handcuffs to restrain the customer while she was alone in an interview room and instead used his personal cellphone to take photographs of her, which violated operational orders.
Paragon’s subsequent investigation concluded that McCoy had failed to follow proper detainment procedures and orders, leading to his termination.
Through union grievance procedures, Paragon later agreed to rescind McCoy’s termination on the condition that he obtain a favorable suitability determination from the Department of Homeland Security to work on the federal contract. However, following a review of the incident by personnel security specialists, the agency issued an unfavorable suitability determination, finding McCoy unfit to work on the contract.
McCoy filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers ages 40 and older. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the government, prompting McCoy’s appeal.
In his appeal, McCoy argued that the agency conducted a biased and procedurally flawed investigation. He pointed to comments allegedly made by Inspector Taylor before the incident, including remarks that some officers were “too old” and not in shape to perform the job.
The appeals court rejected these arguments, noting that the ultimate decision-maker, Security Operations Branch Chief Dina Martinez, was unaware of McCoy’s age at the time and made an independent assessment based on recommendations and explanations provided by both Paragon and McCoy.
“The record contains no evidence that DHS’s suitability determination was made because of McCoy’s age,” Judge Kirsch wrote in the ruling. The court added that stray remarks are typically insufficient to create an inference of discrimination when they are not made by the actual decision-maker.
The court also affirmed the district court’s refusal to consider another officer as a younger comparator for the lawsuit, noting that McCoy failed to disclose the individual’s name as a comparator during the discovery phase of the litigation despite repeated requests from the defense. The panel concluded that McCoy’s conduct during the security incident, rather than his age, was the basis for the federal agency’s decision.
READ: California Graduate Student Arrested For Campus Bomb Threat Hoaxes
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
