Frakes v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp.

BRUCE L. FRAKES, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION d/b/a METRA RAIL, et al., Defendants.

No. 18-cv-5390

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

November 29, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Steven C. Seeger United States District Judge

Bruce Frakes worked as a superintendent at Metra Rail. One afternoon, he got into an argument with a subordinate, John Frencher, and they got a bit testy with each other. They exchanged words, but not blows. After the fracas, Frakes told his supervisors about the incident, and claimed that Frencher had charged him in an aggressive manner. He painted a picture of a confrontation that nearly became physical.

That story didn't hold up well. A nearby security camera captured what happened, and the video footage did not show any aggressiveness by Frencher. The supervisors watched the tape and were underwhelmed with Frakes's exaggerated story-telling. So Frakes accepted a demotion and waived further fact-finding. He retired three months later.

Frakes did not go away quietly. He later sued his supervisors and Metra Rail, alleging a denial of due process and reverse race discrimination. Defendants moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

Background

Frakes a white man, joined Metra Rail (i.e., Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation) as a carman in 1988. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 8 (Dckt. No. 79). A carman works on “any type of repairs to any seats, windows, anything in the interior nonelectrical [or] nonmechanical” on the trains. See Clifford Dep., at 30:8-12 (Dckt. No 69-2).

He worked his way up the ladder. By 2012, Frakes held the position of superintendent, a managerial role in charge of the facilities' maintenance schedules, inspections, and compliance with safety regulations. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 9 (Dckt No. 79). His role was to “run the shop, ” meaning that he was responsible for repairing and inspecting Metra trains. See Clifford Dep., at 31:19 - 32:22 (Dckt No. 69-2).

On September 25, 2017, John Frencher (an electrician) was tasked with cleaning the pins on the highliner couplers. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 40 (Dckt. No. 79); Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 14 (Dckt No. 98). That job basically involved cleaning the parts that join railroad cars. See Rojas Dep., at 39:12-18 (Dckt. No. 69-5); Clifford Dep., at 54:21 - 55:5 (Dckt. No. 69-2). The parties don't explain who gave Frencher that task (hence the passive voice in the topic sentence of this paragraph). But for present purposes, the important thing is that the job of cleaning the pins was on Frencher's plate.

It wasn't on his plate for long. Frencher felt that the task was dangerous, so he brought a “good faith challenge” to his superior, Joseph Louis, who in turn told his supervisor, Frakes. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 38 (Dckt. No. 79); Rojas Dep., at 78:15-24 (Dckt. No. 69-5). A “good faith challenge” is a way for employees to challenge an assigned task for safety reasons, and to discuss safety concerns comfortably with their managers. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 37; McCann Dep., at 88:5-17 (Dckt. No. 69-3). Once an employee raises a challenge, the goal is to “ascertain if there's a safety situation and if there's a safer or better way to do something.” See McCann Dep., at 88:13-14. If the parties can't resolve the issue, a manager may reassign the employee to another task. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 39.

So Frencher raised a good faith challenge to that particular assignment. The parties disagree about what, exactly, happened next. They agree that Frakes and Frencher had a confrontation, but they characterize the level of severity differently.

Frakes paints Frencher as a bad apple who refused take orders and follow instructions. According to Frakes, he reassigned Frencher and gave him another task after he raised a challenge to cleaning the pins. See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 14 (Dckt. No. 98). Frakes's supervisors, Defendants Kevin Clifford and Frank Rojas, knew about the reassignment, and Rojas even told Frencher to do what Frakes said. See Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 14 (Dckt. No. 80). But Frencher refused the second task as well, for no apparent reason. Id.; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 40 (Dckt. No. 79). Frakes then told Frencher to sit down while he contacted Rojas to resolve the situation. See Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 14.

Instead of sitting (again, according to Frakes), Frencher walked to Frakes's office and loudly “pounded his closed fist” on the steel door. Id. at ¶ 15; Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 41 (Dckt. No. 79). As an aside, the parties leave some gaps in the story, and don't paint a clear picture of where, exactly, Frencher was before Frakes told him to sit down. But the key point is that Frencher arrived at Frakes's door.

As Frakes tells it, he opened the door and told Frencher to step into his office because Frakes intended to remove him from service. See Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 15 (Dckt. No. 80). That's when Frencher supposedly “charged towards Frakes, ” prompting another Metra employee to jump in and hold Frencher back. Id.

Defendants offer a different version of what transpired. As they tell it, Frakes improperly reassigned Frencher to a task that required preapproval from the union. See Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶¶ 39-40 (Dckt. No. 69). Frencher refused (presumably because of the lack of union approval), and Frakes responded by threatening to remove him from service for insubordination. Id. at ¶ 40.

Not much later, Frencher knocked on Frakes's door but walked away before anyone answered. Id. at ¶ 41. The knocking agitated Frakes, so he opened the door, pointed his finger at Frencher, and exclaimed that he was “going to call somebody on him for his actions.” Id. at ¶ 42. Frencher then turned around to face Frakes, but another Metra employee stepped between the two men and deescalated the situation. So Frencher walked away. Id.

Everyone agrees that the two men had an unpleasant interaction. But they disagree about the level of severity. For present purposes, the most important thing is the claim by Frakes that Frencher had charged him.

After the interaction, Frakes told his superiors (again, Rojas and Clifford) that Frencher had charged him. So they allowed Frakes to remove Frencher from service. See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 17 (Dckt. No. 98).

That same day, Frakes pulled security footage of the incident and gathered witness statements. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 46 (Dckt. No. 79); Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 25 (Dckt. No. 98). Also on the same day, he prepared his own written statement about the incident. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 50. Frakes then supplied his written statement to the individual Defendants. See McCann Dep., at 112:15 - 113:16 (Dckt. No. 69-3)

The parties did not include the written statement by Frakes in the summary judgment record. But the parties do characterize what it said. Frakes's statement repeated the story he alleges in this case: Frencher was aggressive and charged towards him, requiring another Metra employee to put up his arms to keep Frencher back. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 50 (Dckt. No. 79).

Later that day (September 25), Frakes and Rojas went to Metra headquarters so that Frakes could tell his supervisors - Defendants Kevin McCann, Janice Thomas, and Clifford -what happened in person. Id. at ¶ 47.

They played the video at the meeting. Id. at ¶ 49. The tall tale by Frakes then fell apart, for everyone to see. The video showed that Frencher was not physically aggressive.

The four Metra personnel (the four individual Defendants in this action) then met together and agreed: Frakes's account of the events, including his written statement, was simply untrue. See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts, at ¶ 25 (Dckt. No. 98); Clifford Dep., at 80:7 - 81:12, 98:20-24 (Dckt. No. 69-2); McCann Dep., at 124:3-14 (Dckt. No. 69-3); Thomas Dep., at 34:8-22, 72:18 - 74:20 (Dckt. No. 69-4); Rojas Dep., at 48:22 - 50:10 (Dckt. No. 69-5).

This Court watched the video, too, and confirmed that Frencher did not charge Frakes in an aggressive manner. At most, Frencher took a few steps in the direction of Frakes, without engaging in anything close to a bull rush toward his supervisor. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”).

The video did not capture the entire interaction. The camera was situated at one end of a long corridor of some kind. See Incident Video, at 08:48:22 (Dckt. No. 69-16). Frakes and Frencher appeared somewhat off in the distance, and the view isn't perfect. But it shows enough.

Frakes's office door was not visible on camera, so the footage does not show whether Frencher was knocking or pounding on the door. But the parties agree that the altercation occurred outside Frakes's office. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 41 (Dckt. No. 79).

The footage begins with Frencher exiting Frakes's office (again, the office door is not visible) and walking away. See Incident Video, at 08:48:24 (Dckt. No. 69-16). Frencher...