Mochu v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc.

1

Martin Mochu, Plaintiff, v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc., Defendant

No. 20 CV 7035

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

August 2, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Lindsay C. Jenkins United States District Judge

Mochu Martin Mochu (“Plaintiff” or “Mochu”) brings suit against Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Advocate”), for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 49]. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. Mochu's Title VII claims for discrimination and retaliation are limited to the adverse employment action of Defendant's decision to deny Mochu a promotion to technical specialist in 2022. Mochu's hostile work environment claim is also limited to the period after Stephanie Kuhn became Mochu's supervisor in early 2019. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied.

I. Background

The following facts are taken from Defendants' Local Rule (L.R.) 56.1 statement and the exhibits filed with that statement [Dkts. 34 through 39, 50, 51], as well as from the affidavits that Mochu attaches to his response brief. [See Dkts. 64-1 through 64-5.] These facts are undisputed except where a dispute is noted.^[1] Mochu is a resident of Illinois. He was born in Nigeria and speaks with an accent. He obtained his undergraduate degree in biomedical sciences and became a certified cytotechnologist in 1993. In December 2012, Mochu applied for and obtained a position as a cytotechnologist at ACL Laboratories, which is a part of Advocate. Initially, Mochu's job consisted primarily of screening gynecologic slides for malignancies to determine the presence of abnormal, precancerous or cancerous cells.

The cytology department is a department of approximately twenty-five team members including lab assistants, data entry team members and cytotechnologists. Mochu was the only Black cytotechnologist when he was hired in 2013. At the time Mochu was hired, the supervisor of the Cytology department was Donna Shelk (“Shelk”). Shelk's supervisor was Debra Ortiz (“Ortiz”), who was the director of both the cytology and histology departments. [See Dkt. 37 at 5-6 (Tr. 9:16-10:6).] Shelk was assisted by Stephanie Kuhn (“Khun”), who held the title of technical specialist. A technical specialist is a higher-level role than a cytotechnologist. Shelk and Kuhn are both white and American.

Advocate employees are hired subject to a 90-day probationary period during which time the supervisor and the new employee assess the ability of the new employee to perform the position. During the probationary period, the employment relationship may be terminated by either party without notice. In April 2013, at the end of Mochu's probationary period, Shelk gave Mochu a performance review. Mochu received an overall rating of “significantly exceeds expectations.” [Dkt. 51, ¶ 12.] In his next performance review at the end of 2013, Shelk evaluated Mochu as “exceeds expectations.” [Id., ¶ 14.] Mochu was satisfied with both of these evaluations.

According to Mochu, when he began at Advocate all of the other employees in the cytology department were afraid of Shelk and Kuhn and “[n]obody was speaking.” [Dkt. 51, ¶ 17.] Former cytotechnologist Aimee Hilden (“Hilden”), who is white, told Mochu that there was a lunch “clique” that included Shelk, Kuhn and a few other white employees who ate together in the employee lounge. Hilden told Mochu that she heard Kuhn say that “they can't get a good feeling” about Mochu and “we need to get rid of this guy.” [Dkt. 34-1 at 34 (Tr. 124:20-125:12).] According to Mochu, this talk made Hilden “so uncomfortable” that “she left the lunch table.” [Id.] Mochu did not hear the comments directly and did not know if Kuhn spoke of other employees the same way. According to Mochu, he never heard Shelk make any racist comments but another cytotechnologist, Cara Root (“Root”) told Mochu that Shelk used the “N word” all the time. [Dkt. 51, ¶ 102.]

Mochu and other employees informed the on-site human resources consultant, Jeana Chammas (“Chammas”) that there was a perception that lunch breaks were not inclusive. According to Chammas, Hilden stated that “she was uncomfortable because there was personal chatter going on with the group.” [Dkt. 36 at 9 (Tr. 22:15-21).] Chammas spoke with Shelk about how she “needs to make sure that she's inclusive and her having lunch meal breaks with team members in her group was not being perceived as being inclusive.” [Id.]

Chammas also testified that Mochu shared with her that there had been inappropriate discussions about his hair. Mochu believed this difference in treatment was racially motivated. Chammas testified that she would “provide coaching to the leader to ensure that that topic wouldn't be discussed moving forward.” [Dkt. 36 at 7 (Tr. 15:9-16:13); see also Dkt. 51, ¶¶ 21-22.]

In late 2013 or early 2014, Mochu read a slide and diagnosed it “negative.” Shelk, Kuhn and Technical Specialist Mary Bogart took the slide to then-Medical Director Dr. Jamie Walloch (“Walloch”), who changed the diagnosis to “high grade.” A pathologist eventually reviewed the slide and agreed with Mochu, diagnosing “negative atrophy.” [Dkt. 51, ¶ 23.] Mochu asked Shelk to remove mention of this incident from his record, but Shelk refused. Mochu “knew it affected his evaluation.” [Id.] Mochu also explains that the changed diagnosis required the patient to undergo additional, painful biopsies, which ultimately proved to be unnecessary when the pathologist concurred in Mochu's reading.

Shelk placed Mochu on a Performance Deficiency Notice (“PDN”) effective September 16, 2014. The PDN stated that “it was generally for not following policy and procedure for High Risk cases and having a level of Quality Variance Reports (‘QIVs') above acceptable limits for releasing of results and HR quality review process.” [Id. ¶ 26.] Mochu disagreed with the PDN because he self-reported his errors, which was a good thing that was encouraged within ACL. [Id., ¶ 27.] Shelk and Kuhn were issuing QIVs “everywhere” and not just with Mochu and Mochu does not know if others had similar types of self-reported errors. [Id., ¶ 28.] When asked why he believed Shelk would issue him a PDN after having given him high ratings in his prior evaluations, Mochu answered: “The thing is that Donna [Shelk] is this kind of person that does things that sometimes are inconsistent and unexplainable.” [Id., ¶ 29.] By the end of 2014, Ortiz (Shelk's supervisor) “made sure that they put an end to [the PDN]” and Mochu successfully completed it. [Id., ¶ 30.]

In another instance, both Mochu and another cytotechnologist John Paladino (“Paladino”), who is white, received feedback-not discipline-on an ASCUS (abnormality) miss. Shelk ripped up Paladino's feedback form but not Mochu's; she placed Mochu's in his record. Mochu reported this to Chammas, who told Shelk to apologize. [Dkt. 51, ¶ 31.]

Around the same time, in late 2013 or 2014, one of the technical specialists, Brian Lukes (“Lukes”) put a picture of President Obama, superimposed on a monkey, on a wall that Mochu passed on the way to his cubicle. [Dkt. 51, ¶ 104.] Lukes “quickly put down” the image. [Id.] Mochu also testified that in late 2013 or 2014 Lukes used his computer to show people “a picture of Obama dressed in African attire or garb with, you know, monkey looking ears or stuff like that.” [Id., ¶ 103.] Mochu did not see the image, and Root told Lukes to stop or he would be fired. [Id. ¶ 105.] Mochu did not report the incident to management and does not know if anyone else did. However, Ortiz admitted that she was told about the incident and that she instructed the group that politics was “a very sensitive issue” and “really should not be spoken about in the laboratory.” [Dkt. 37 at 28 (Tr. 101:19-23).]

Sometime in 2014 or 2015 (the parties are not specific), Shelk left Advocate under a separation agreement. She was found “not to have been exhibiting competencies in alignment with the expectations of the organization” in relation to employees in her department (including Mochu), employees in other departments and other leaders. [Dkt. 51, ¶ 32.] After Shelk left Advocate, Ortiz (with Kuhn's input) gave Mochu an overall rating of “meets expectations” in his 2014 performance review. Mochu was not satisfied with the rating because he “felt like [he] was doing a good job.” [Id., ¶ 34.]

Mohamed Noorani (“Noorani”) was hired as the new supervisor. Mochu got along well with Noorani and spent a lot of time helping him on projects. [Dkt. 51, ¶ 35.] Noorani allowed Mochu and other experienced cytotechnologists to do things they had not previously been able to do like molecular training, HPV sign-out, AML sign-out, and Panther training. Noorani also developed a tool to standardize productivity, which measured the number of slides being screened and the error rate. [Id., ¶ 36.] Noorani designed the tool to provide an objective measure of productivity without bias, which would eliminate conversations about favoritism and standardize productivity. [Id., ¶ 37.] Using the algorithm developed by Noorani, Mochu's productivity and work quality were exceptional. [Id., ¶ 39.] Noorani conducted Mochu's 2015 performance review, in which he received a rating of “significantly exceeds expectations.”

At some point during his tenure at Advocate, Noorani assigned Mochu a rotation to lead the lab's prep area. Kuhn asked if she could work with Mochu and Noorani agreed. About a week later Kuhn told Noorani that the prep staff did not see Mochu as a leader. Noorani called a meeting with the prep staff, Kuhn, and Mochu to determine the credibility of Kuhn's...