Chatman v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.

MILDRED CHATMAN, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 1:18-cv-01328

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

August 31, 2020

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Mildred Chatman ("Chatman") sued Defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago ("BOE") under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. ("Title VII"). (First Am. Compl. ("Compl.") (Dkt. No. 16) ¶ 1.) Chatman alleges BOE did not hire her because of: (1) her age pursuant to the ADEA, (id. ¶ 30); (2) her race pursuant to Title VII, (id. ¶ 34); and, (3) in retaliation of a protected activity pursuant to Title VII, (id. ¶ 38). Presently before us is BOE's Rule 56(a) Motion for Summary Judgment and related motions to strike. (Def. MSJ (Dkt. No. 68) at 3; Pl. Mot. Strike (Dkt. No. 85); Def. Mot. Strike (Dkt. No. 94).) For the foregoing reasons, we grant BOE's Motion for Summary Judgment and BOE's motion to strike certain exhibits from our consideration of BOE's summary judgment motion. We deny Chatman's motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

Chatman is a 62-year-old African American woman. (Def.'s Statement Material Facts ("Def. SOF") (Dkt. No. 62) ¶ 1; Pl's Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Material Facts ("Pl. SOF") (Dkt. No. 86))¹. BOE employed Chatman as a library assistant and then laid her off. (Def. SOF ¶ 2.) Chatman filed a charge for age and race discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights andthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), then sued in the Cook County Circuit Court. (Id. ¶ 7.)

That lawsuit settled, (id. ¶ 9), and as part of that settlement, BOE agreed to interview Chatman for positions within the Chicago Public School ("CPS") system. (Id. ¶ 11). BOE was not obliged to hire Chatman for any of the positions. (Id. ¶ 13.) To schedule an interview, Chatman was to identify the vacant positions on the CPS job website, Taleo, and notify the CPS Director, Deputy General Counsel, and a Senior Assistant General Counsel between February 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015. (Id. ¶ 12.). Chatman did not directly notify any of the listed CPS employees in the agreement, (id. ¶ 13), but identified "more than a dozen positions" from where BOE arranged five interviews. (Pl. SOF ¶ 5.) Chatman did not submit an online application for any of the five positions, (Def. SOF ¶ 18-19), nor provide cover letters, a resume, references, or any other materials (hereinafter, "application documents") to the principals before or during the interviews. (Id. ¶ 20.) BOE did not hire Chatman for any of the positions. (Id. ¶ 15.) Then Chatman filed a charge of race, age, and retaliatory discrimination with the EEOC against BOE on September 9, 2016. (Compl. ¶ 6.) The details for each of the positions follow.

Chatman interviewed for a library assistant position at Edward Beasley Elementary Magnet Academic Center ("Beasley") on June 2, 2015. (Id. ¶ 14, 29.) BOE notified Chatman's counsel on September 9, 2015, the position was filled. (Id. ¶ 30).

Chatman recalls interviewing for a teacher assistant position at Charles W. Earle Elementary School ("Earle") on September 10, 2015. (Id. ¶ 14, 31.) But Chatman has not produced evidence of this interview occurring. (Id. ¶ 34). Chatman identified Michael Watkins as a similarly situated individual hired as a teacher assistant. (Id. ¶ 32). BOE hired Watkins as a Teacher Assistant II at Beasley on August 8, 2015. (Id. ¶ 33).

BOE scheduled an interview for Chatman for a library assistant position at Arnold Mireles Elementary Academy ("Mireles") on November 23, 2015, (id. ¶ 14, 35), and forwarded Chatman's resume to Principal Randle-Robbins, (Id. Ex. K at 3). Principal Randle-Robbins, a decisionmaker involved in the hiring process, (id. ¶ 36), has no recollection of Chatman's interview. (Id. Ex. J ¶ 6). Mireles has not had a library assistant since 2014. (Id. ¶ 38). There is some dispute whether another individual, identified as K.D., was selected for the position, but no evidence that he was actually on-boarded for the position. (Pl. SOF ¶¶ 9; Def. Resp. Pl. SOF ("Def. SOF Resp.") (Dkt. No. 92) ¶ 9.) There is some dispute whether Randle-Robbins discussed a lawsuit with Chatman during her interview. (Pl. SOF ¶¶ 10; Def. SOF Resp. ¶¶ 10.) There is no documentary evidence disputing that this position was closed on Feb 10, 2016 for budgetary reasons. (Def. SOF ¶ 34.)

Chatman interviewed for a Special Education Classroom Assistant (SECA) position at James McDade Classical School ("McDade") on December 2, 2015, with Principal Perry. (Def. SOF ¶¶ 14, 39.) BOE sent a copy of Chatman's resume to Principal Perry before the interview. (Id. Ex. L at 2.) The position required holding a valid Illinois State Board of Education ("ISBE")paraprofessional license. (Id. ¶ 44.) Chatman may hold a paraprofessional license from Illinois, but apparently became aware of that fact during discovery for this lawsuit. (Pl. SOF ¶ 22.) She has not worked as a SECA or at any of the schools where she interviewed. (Def. SOF ¶ 23.) Principal Perry, a decisionmaker involved in the hiring process, (id. ¶ 41), hired Contressa Alexander, an African American female over 40 years old, and Jonathan Dorsey, an African American male, both holding valid ISBE paraprofessional licenses and with prior working experience at McDade. (Id. ¶¶ 41-51.) Principal Perry did not know why Taleo had requested he interview Chatman when deciding who to hire. (Id. ¶ 44.) Principal Perry did not know Chatman's age, (id. ¶ 53), or of any lawsuit or grievance claim filed by Chatman against BOE when deciding who to hire. (Id. ¶ 52). Principal Perry looked for qualified candidates that were familiar with McDade. (Id. ¶ 44.) When hiring Alexander, Principal Perry considered her ISBE license and prior work experience as a SECA and at McDade. (Id. ¶ 46.) When hiring Dorsey, Principal Perry considered his status as a graduate of McDade, prior volunteering for SECA positions, and classroom experience with special education students. (Id. ¶ 49.)

Chatman interviewed for a SECA position at Ray Elementary School ("Ray") on December 17, 2015, with Principal Thole. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 54.) Principal Thole had a copy of Chatman's resume she reviewed during the interview. (Id. Ex. F ¶ 4). The position required holding a valid ISBE paraprofessional license. (Id. ¶ 60.) Principal Thole, a decisionmaker involved in the hiring process, (id. ¶ 55), hired Sheila Tines, an African American woman over 40 years old, Doralia Coleman, an African American woman over 40 years old, and Rokeya Begum, an Asian woman. (Id. ¶¶ 61, 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73.) These three hires all held ISBE paraprofessional licenses and had prior working experience as a SECA and/or working at Ray. (Id. ¶¶ 57-73.) There is some dispute whether Chatman was more experienced than these hiresin general, but not whether she had more experience working as a SECA or at Ray. (Pl. SOF ¶¶ 15, 16.) When making the hiring decision, Principal Thole did not know Chatman's age and was unaware of any lawsuit or grievance claim filed by Chatman against BOE. (Id. ¶ 56.) Principal Thole considered the applicants prior SECA experience, fit with students and other teachers, relevant content and/or grade level experience, positive recommendations, whether they had a valid ISBE Paraprofessional License, and hired the best candidates based on these. (Id. ¶¶ 58-59.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of production and must support its assertion by identifying those portions of the record that it "believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986).

To overcome a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmovantmust present affirmative evidence "from which a jury might return a verdict in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2514 (1986). We draw "all justifiable inferences are [] drawn in [the non-movant's] favor." Id. at 255, 106 S. Ct. at 2513. If the evidence is insufficient for a jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party, or if the evidence is "merely colorable [] or not significantly probative," a court may grant summary judgment for the moving party. Id. at 249 (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

I. Motions to Strike

Both Chatman and the BOE filed motions to strike various exhibits. (Dkt. Nos. 85 & 95.)

"A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, ... affidavits or declarations ...; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact ... the court may ... consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

A. Defendants' motions to strike

"Supporting materials designed to establish issues of fact in a summary judgment proceeding 'must be established through one of the vehicles designed to ensure reliability and veracity—depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits. When a party seeks to offer evidence through other exhibits, they must be identified by affidavit or otherwise made admissible in evidence.'" Reed v. Richards, 32 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 1994) (table op.) (quoting Friedel v. City of Madison, 832...