Barnett v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.

BERNADETTE BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Defendant.

Case No. 14 C 5152

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

May 26, 2016

Judge John Robert Blakey

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff Bernadette Barnett, a former Chicago Public Schools teacher, alleges that Defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Illinois (the "Board") discriminated and retaliated against her, in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Complaint, Counts I (race discrimination), II (age discrimination) and III (retaliation). The Board, in particular, had reassigned Barnett to an administrative position pending the results of its investigation into Barnett's alleged unprofessional behavior at school, for example, calling one student a "heifer" and another a "stupid ass little girl." Based on its investigation, the Board approved dismissal charges against Barnett.

The Board now moves for summary judgment [36], arguing that no reasonable juror could conclude that the Board's decision to reassign and approve dismissal charges was anything but the product of Barnett's own misconduct, let alone her race (black), age (over 40 years old) or prior discrimination complaint. This Court agrees.

I. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir. 2014). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, this Court must construe all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here, Barnett. See CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland School District, 743 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2014).

II. Facts¹

Barnett, who is black and has been over the age of 40 at all relevant times, is a former Chicago Public Schools teacher at Reavis Elementary Math & Science Special School ("Reavis"). DSOF ¶¶ 1-2. Barnett worked at Reavis from January 31, 2011 until October 30, 2012, when the Board reassigned her to the LakeCalumet Elementary Network Office. DSOF ¶¶ 11, 21, 36. Barnett stayed at the Lake Calumet Elementary Network Office until on or about September 12, 2014, when she submitted an Application for Resignation or Retirement to teach at another school district. DSOF ¶ 42.

This discrimination action arises from Barnett's pattern of unprofessional behavior at Reavis, first in March 2011, and then again in May 2012, and from September to October 2012.

March 2011. In March 2011, and after receiving complaints from parents and staff that Barnett had used inappropriate language with students and also had told one student to hit another, then-Principal Michael Johnson issued a Notice of Pre-Discipline Hearing. DSOF ¶ 14. The Board held the Pre-Discipline Hearing on March 21, 2011. DSOF ¶ 15. Based on the Pre-Discipline Hearing and Principal Johnson's subsequent interviews of students, on March 30, 2011, Principal Johnson issued a Notice of Disciplinary Action, suspending Barnett for 14 days for violating the Board's Employee Discipline Policy. DSOF ¶ 17. Barnett appealed her suspension, but was unsuccessful. DSOF ¶¶ 18-19.

May 2011. On or about May 25, 2011, the Board reassigned Barnett to its "Area 15 Office" pending its investigation of another incident. DSOF ¶ 21. The cited record does not establish the basis for this investigation, but the Board avers that Barnett had relayed over the school intercom that one of her students commented: "suck my dick." DSOF ¶ 21.

Perhaps in response to being reassigned, Barnett filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC (Charge No. 846-2011-94410) on February 1, 2012. DSOF ¶ 22. Barnett alleged that she faced discrimination at Reavis based on her age, race, retaliation and sex. DSOF ¶ 22. Barnett linked her reassignment to that discrimination, writing in the facts field of the EEOC Charge of Discrimination form:

During my employment, I have been subjected to sexual harassment and harassment. I complained to Respondent [Chicago Public Schools] to no avail. I was removed from my position and assigned to Respondent's local office.

DSOF ¶ 22.

On May 9, 2012, Barnett and the Board executed a Settlement Agreement, resolving their cross-grievances. DSOF ¶ 24. Barnett accepted a 14-day suspension for her misconduct in exchange for withdrawing her February 1, 2012 Charge of Discrimination. DSOF ¶ 24. Barnett understood her suspension to be for the so-called "intercom incident." DSOF ¶ 25.

September to October 2012. For the 2012 to 2013 school year, Barnett was assigned to a 5th Grade non-mathematics class. PSOAF ¶ 1. Barnett, in her affidavit supporting her response brief, asserts that this assignment was "outside her certification and specialty." PSOAF ¶ 1. Barnett also testified that her class assignment was omitted from the Duty Schedule in August 2012, which lists each teacher's assignments before the upcoming semester. PSOAF ¶ 1.

Also at the beginning of the new school year, the allegations that Barnett was engaging in unprofessional conduct persisted. See DSOF ¶¶ 28, 32, 35. Ray Poloko,an investigator in the Board's Law Department, investigated multiple incidents from September and October 2012, interviewing the staff and students who witnessed each incident. DSOF ¶¶ 28-35. In three investigation memos issued in October and November 2012 and addressed to Senior Assistant General Counsel James Ciesil, Poloko concluded that "credible evidence" supported the following allegations:

1. Barnett initiated a verbal altercation with Nicole Poplawski (another Reavis teacher) in the presence of students.

2. Barnett called students: "bitches, bitch asses, little bitch, ghetto bitches, dumb and stupid."

3. Barnett remarked to her students: "I went to college and studied hard. White kids are smarter than black kids."

4. Barnett called a 10 year-old female student a "heifer."

5. Barnett called an 11 year-old female student a "stupid ass little girl."

6. Barnett exclaimed, "you all got me fucked up," which was overheard by her class.

DSOF ¶¶ 28, 30-31, 33-35. Barnett, for her part, denies that she made most of these statements and attempts to justify the remainder. PSOAF ¶¶ 3-7.

While Poloko's investigation was ongoing, CEO of Chicago Public Schools Barbara Byrd-Bennett issued an October 30, 2012 letter, reassigning Barnett to an administrative position at the Lake Calumet Elementary Network Office, pending the results of the Board's investigation. DSOF ¶ 36; 10/30/12 Byrd-Bennett Letter. Principal Gail King (who took over from Principal Johnson in July 2012) gave this letter to Barnett on or about November 2, 2012. DSOF ¶¶ 26, 36.

Based on Poloko's findings, CEO Byrd-Bennett, in a June 17, 2013 letter, (1) approved dismissal charges against Barnett for "conduct unbecoming of a Chicago Public Schools employee," in violation of Section 34-85 of the School Code of Illinois; and (2) requested that Barnett be suspended without pay pending a dismissal hearing. DSOF ¶¶ 38-39; 6/17/13 Byrd-Bennett Letter. The Board tentatively set the dismissal hearing for July 15, 2013. 6/17/13 Byrd-Bennett Letter. Also in her letter, CEO Byrd-Bennett recited Barnett's six incidents of unprofessional conduct from September to October 2012. DSOF ¶ 39.

The July 15, 2013 dismissal hearing was moved and, before any hearing was held, Barnett tendered her resignation. DSOF ¶¶ 42-43. In her September 12, 2014 Application for Resignation or Retirement, Barnett explained that she accepted a teaching position in another school district. DSOF ¶ 42; 9/12/14 Application for Resignation or Retirement.

III. Analysis

A. Counts I and II: Race and Age Discrimination

In Counts I and II of her Complaint, Barnett, in connection with her reassignment to the Lake Calumet Elementary Network Office and the Board's approval of dismissal charges, alleges that the Board discriminated against her based on her race and age in violation of Title VII and the ADEA.² To prove these claims, Plaintiff can proceed under the direct and/or indirect methods. In responseto the Board's summary judgment motion, Barnett presents no direct evidence of discrimination, electing instead to proceed under the indirect method only. For both statutes, the McDonnell Douglass burden shifting framework governs when proceeding under the indirect method. Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc., 589 F.3d 357, 364-65 (7th Cir. 2009).

Under the indirect method, the initial burden is on Barnett to provide evidence that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was meeting the Board's legitimate expectations at the time of the alleged adverse action; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the Board treated similarly situated employees not in the protected class more favorably. Scaife v. Cook County, 446 F.3d 735, 739 (7th Cir. 2009), overruled on other grounds, Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2013); Amrhein v. Health Care Service Corp., 546 F.3d 854, 859 (7th Cir. 2008). Once Barnett has established her prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Board to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Scaife, 446 F.3d at 739; Amrhein, 546 F.3d at 859. If the Board meets this burden, the burden shifts back to Barnett to demonstrate that the proffered reason is pretextual. Scaife, 446 F.3d at 739-40; Amrhein, 546 F.3d at 859-60. As discussed in Subsections 1 and 2 below, here, Barnett has not...