Hankle-Sample v. City of Chicago

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert M. Dow Jr. United States District Judge

Veola Hankle-Sample (“Plaintiff”), a former employee of the City of Chicago, worked with Charles Billows, Tina Consola, Joel Flores, and Reshma Soni. On the heels of her termination, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit [23] against the City, Billows, Consola, Flores, and Soni (collectively “Defendants”) alleging various Title VII and civil rights violations. All Defendants moved to dismiss [29, 33.]

For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. In particular, the Court dismisses the City as to the § 1983 claims, Counts II, V, VI, VIII, X, and XII, without prejudice. However, the City's motion to dismiss the Title VII and ADEA claims, Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and XI, is denied.

As to the Individual Defendants, the Court dismisses all Individuals Defendants from the Title VII and ADEA claims, Counts I, III, IV, VII, IX, and XII, without prejudice. Furthermore, the Court dismisses Defendants Flores and Soni from the remaining claims against them, the § 1983 claims, Counts II, V, VI, VIII, X, and XII. Therefore, Flores and Soni are terminated from the First Amended Complaint without prejudice. However, the Court denies Defendants Billows' and Consola's motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims, Counts II, V, VI, VIII, X, and XII.

2

I. Background^[1]

Plaintiff is a fifty-two-year-old African American woman. [23 at ¶ 4.] In May 2014, Plaintiff began her employment with the City of Chicago's Department of Finance as the Manager of Revenue Collection. [Id. at ¶ 13.] She was promoted to Assistant Director of Street Operations in December 2016. [Id. at ¶ 16.] In this new role, she initially reported to the Deputy Director of Street Operations, Bill Keenan, who is an African American male. [Id. at ¶ 16.] In January 2017, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant Consola, the First Deputy Director, informing Plaintiff that Plaintiff would report to Defendant Billows, “a younger, White male.” [Id. at ¶ 17.] Defendant Billows was allegedly promoted to Assistant Deputy. [Id.] However, Plaintiff emailed the Personnel Director, Doniece Stevens, “inquiring about the reporting change, ” and Stevens informed Plaintiff “that she was unaware of this change and that the change was fictitious and had not been approved.” [Id. at ¶¶ 18, 20.] Keenan was also informed that this change was not approved, but Plaintiff was nevertheless “forced to report to” Defendant Billows. [Id. at ¶ 20.]

Between 2017 and 2019, “Plaintiff made a plethora of complaints verbalizing race discrimination and disparate treatment to several managerial agents of the Defendant.” [23 at ¶ 21.] Specifically, she “complained that non-Black employees that hold the same title and work in the same department were paid less than the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Black peers, a practice perpetuated by Defendants Consola and Soni.” [Id. at ¶ 22.] In July 2018, Plaintiff filed two EEO complaints against the City of Chicago, alleging that she was subject to different terms of employment because of her race and that she was paid less than several similarly situated nonBlack employees. [Id. at ¶ 23.] In response to these complaints, “the Defendant engaged in a campaign to harass Plaintiff” and “posed continuous impediment to Plaintiff's ability to perform

3

essential job functions.” [Id. at ¶¶ 24-25.]

For example, Defendant Consola began sending “unprofessional, rude” emails to Plaintiff and “would bypass three levels of hierarchy to interrogate and insult Plaintiff about matters that were not in Plaintiff's job purview.” [23 at ¶¶ 26-27.] Defendant Consola also claimed that Plaintiff's employees had erroneously issued 4, 000 tickets when, in reality, only 70 tickets were issued in error. [Id. at ¶ 49.] Defendant Billows refused to communicate with Plaintiff, interact with Plaintiff, or provide Plaintiff with any instructions or training for her new position. [Id. at ¶ 30.] He would deliberately fail to include Plaintiff on important communications she needed to do her job. [Id.] Defendant Billows did interact with Plaintiff's similarly situated but white coworkers. [Id. at ¶ 31.] Billows also “taunted Plaintiff and told other employees that he received a promotion over Plaintiff even though he does not have any educational degrees.” [Id. at ¶ 37.]

The Defendants excluded Plaintiff from various meetings that were directly tied to Plaintiff's job tasks, such as meetings with aldermen and meetings about new equipment. [23 at ¶¶ 33-34.]

Plaintiff “complained to Defendant's leadership numerous times about the discriminatory conduct she endured from Charles Billows.” [23 at ¶ 36.] Defendants Consola and Flores “condoned Billows' behavior toward Plaintiff and failed to intervene.” [Id. at ¶ 61.]

Prior to filing her complaints, Plaintiff never received negative comments about her work or any performance evaluations, but after she filed her complaints, she received a negative performance evaluation. [23 at ¶¶ 38-40.] She was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (herein “Performance Improvement Plan” or “PIP”) for forty-five days. [Id. at ¶ 41.] It was Defendants' practice to train employees that were placed on PIPs; however, Plaintiff never received any training. [Id. at ¶¶ 42-43.] Plaintiff's PIP also “included demerits for job tasks that

4

did not lie within Plaintiff's job purview.” [Id. at ¶ 45.] This PIP process was “significantly different than the process Defendants conducted with similarly situated White employees.” [Id. at ¶ 47.] After filing her complaints, Defendants held her to “different standards than her White younger, male co-workers.” [Id. at ¶ 50.] For example, Plaintiff was given an assignment to complete a training manual, which she completed. [Id. at ¶ 51.] A white younger male was given the same assignment; he did not complete this and other assignments but was never disciplined and instead received a raise. [Id. at ¶ 52.]

Near the end of her employment, Plaintiff continued to make complaints. Specifically, on May 2, 2019, Plaintiff complained again about retaliation based on her race and gender; specifically, she complained that Defendant Billows was ignoring her request for training and information needed to complete her job. [23 at ¶ 58.] She requested a meeting with Managing Deputy Joel Flores, hoping that he would intervene as he typically met with every person in the department on request. [Id. at ¶ 59.] Defendant Flores “refused to meet with Plaintiff because she complained about discrimination.” [Id.] On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff reported Defendants Billows and Consola for their personal use of the municipal vehicle fleet, and Plaintiff filed a complaint for unfair labor practices “due to Defendant's mandate that Plaintiff report to Charles Billows, a White, younger male, even though Billows held a f[i]ctitious title.” [Id. at ¶ 55.] On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff “complained via email, citing that she was being harassed, discriminated against, and targeted because of prior protected activity.” [Id. at ¶ 62.]

Plaintiff's work environment took a mental and physical toll on her. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff enrolled in the Employee Assistance Program because she was overwhelmed with the harassment and began experiencing chest pains, shortness of breath, and headaches. [23 at ¶ 54.] Shortly thereafter, she was diagnosed with severe anxiety, prescribed medication for panic attacks,

5

and given a physician's instruction to take a leave from work. [Id. at ¶ 54.]

On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated and placed on the City of Chicago's “Do-Not-Rehire” list without cause or justification. [23 at ¶ 64.] Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that her position was filled “with a White, younger male.” [Id. at ¶ 65.] Finally, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant has a deliberate and systemic practice of discriminating against Black Women. Plaintiff's predecessor, a Black Woman resigned because of Defendant's systemic, discriminatory practices.” [Id. at ¶ 66.] Plaintiff also alleged that, “[u]pon information and belief, the Defendant promotes inexperienced White males with no education beyond high school over well-qualified, Black Women.” [Id. at ¶ 67.]

Plaintiff then filed this twelve-count complaint [23] alleging: (I) Title VII race discrimination, (II) § 1983 race discrimination, (III) Title VII harassment (race), (IV) Title VII harassment (retaliation), (V) § 1983 harassment (race), (VI) § 1983 harassment (retaliation), (VII) Title VII retaliatory discharge, (VIII) § 1983 retaliatory discharge, (IX) Title VII age discrimination, (X) § 1983 age discrimination, (XI) Title VII sex/gender discrimination, (XII) § 1983 sex/gender discrimination. Defendants moved to dismiss [29, 33.]

II. Legal Standard

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the complaint typically must comply with Rule 8(a) by providing “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), such that the defendant is given “fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

6

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S at 555). In determining whether the complaint meets this standard, the Court accepts as true all of Plaintiff's well-pleaded factual...