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

130 F.Supp.3d 1166

Randall Noble, Plaintiff,

v.Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, d/b/a/ Metra, Defendant.

10–cv–6821

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

Signed September 16, 2015

Alexandra Elaine Shea, Shantell Renae Feeser, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Stacey McGlynn Atkins, Associate General Counsel Litigation Department Metra, Kenneth Jones, Metra Law Department, Marivel Montes, Russal John Anderson, Sue-Ann Rosen, Nirc/Metra Railroad, Robert J. Kelleher, Metra, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John Z. Lee, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Randall Noble asserts claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Defendant Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, d/b/a/ Metra ("Metra"), alleging that Metra has discriminated against him in his employment based on his race. Noble also claims that Metra retaliated against him when he complained about the discriminatory actions. Metra now has filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to these claims. For his part, Noble contends that the record precludes summary judgment and, alternatively, asks to reopen discovery. For the reasons provided below, the Court grants Metra's motion for summary judgment and denies Noble's motion to reopen discovery.

I. Factual Background¹

Noble, an African–American, began working for Metra in April 2009 as a Laborer. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶¶ 1, 4. Noble last worked for Metra on August 13, 2010. See id. ¶ 4. Noble generally concedes that, during his time at Metra, he was never subjected to termination, reprimand, discipline, demotion, wage diminution, a loss of benefits or job responsibilities, or seniority loss. See id. ¶ 6. Noble also concedes that he was never subjected to racially-charged comments or jokes, and was never told that any actions taken at work were due to his race. See id. Noble, however, does believe that he experienced incidents of racial bias at the hands of Metra, see Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 6, and identifies four incidents he believes support his claims.

A. May 31, 2010, Incident

On May 31, 2010, Noble was scheduled to work the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift at Metra's Western Avenue Yard. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 7. Noble, however, was ordered to go to the Elgin Yard and work an overnight shift. See id. ¶ 8. The parties dispute precisely who gave the order to work and the wording of the order. According to Metra, Noble's supervisor ordered him to work the 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. See id. Noble believes that Dominick Russo, a junior coworker, ordered him to work the 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. shift. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3) B) Stmt. ¶ 8.

In any case, Noble refused to work the night shift, stating that the shift was "not his responsibility" and that he had not received the "necessary training." See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 9. According to Noble, he had only received two days of training, which (at least, according to Noble) was insufficient to perform the tasks required on the night shift. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 9. In particular, Noble believes that he should have been provided training at an electrician school, because some of the tasks he performed for Metra involved handling electrical equipment. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 10; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 10. That said, it is undisputed that Noble never worked as an electrician for Metra. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 10.

Noble's supervisor threatened to write him up for his refusal to work the night shift at Elgin Yard. See id. ¶ 11. Noble never bore any adverse consequences after this threat, however. See id. ¶ 12. After protesting, Noble proceeded to work the night shift at the Elgin Yard. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 12.

B. June 1, 2010, Incident

On June 1, 2010, Noble was working the night shift at the Elgin Yard when a train was delayed for nineteen minutes. According to Metra, Noble admitted that he caused the delay because he did not know what he was doing. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 13. Noble was threatened with a write-up for causing the delay. See id. ¶ 14. Nevertheless, Noble never bore any adverse consequences as a result of this incident. See id. ¶ 15. Noble was sent home early, two hours before the end of his shift, at 5 a.m. See id. ¶ 16.

Noble remembers the incident slightly differently. According to him, the train delay incident must have occurred on a day other than June 1, 2010, because he had left the yard at 2 a.m. that day and recalls that the confrontation with his supervisor over the train delay took place at approximately 9 a.m. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 13. Noble agrees that he was sent home two hours early, but believes the incident occurred on a third shift on a third day based upon the shift times. See id. ¶ 16.

In any event, Noble filed a written complaint against the foreman who sent him home. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) ¶ 17; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 17. Metra investigated Noble's complaint, determined that the foreman had sent Noble home early without justification, and compensated Noble for the two hours he had missed. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) ¶ 18. After Noble filed his complaint, another unidentified foreman approached him and told him he was a "marked man." See id. ¶ 19. Noble found this comment to be unsettling, but was unsure what exactly the foreman meant by it. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) ¶ 20; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 20. Aside from this comment, however, Noble did not suffer any adverse consequences after filing the written complaint. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) ¶¶ 21–22.

C. June 11, 2010, Incident

The third incident occurred on June 11, 2010, while Noble was working at the Elgin Yard. See Def.'s L 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23. He developed an upset stomach and took approximately forty to sixty minutes for his lunch break, exceeding his allotted twenty minutes. See id. ¶ 24. Noble did not have authorization to spend more than twenty minutes for lunch, and he did not notify a supervisor that he would be out longer than twenty minutes. See id. ¶ 25. A foreman finally located Noble; Noble claims he was "interrupted" by the foreman and that the foreman threatened to write him up. See id. ¶ 26. Noble does not dispute that he suffered no adverse employment consequences as a result of this incident. See id. ¶ 27; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 13.

After the lunch confrontation, Noble's supervisor, Mark Simos, ordered him to attend a meeting with another foreman, Ben Robles, to account for his unauthorized absence. See Def.'s L 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 28; see also Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 28. At this meeting, Noble claims that Robles and another foreman, Darren Crouch, were abusive, used threatening language, and threw a hard hat at him, which nearly struck him. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶¶ 29, 31; see also Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 29. According to Noble, while he was preparing a written account of his absence, Crouch made increasingly abusive comments towards him, telling him to "hurry up" to write his report and "get out of this office," finally stating, "You motherf# # ker, I'll kick your ass." See generally Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 30 (detailing conversation); see also Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 30.

Noble called the Metra Police Chief and demanded that the police come to arrest the foreman for verbal assault. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 32. The police officers arrived but took no action; Noble believes that his supervisor convinced the officers to take action against Noble instead, though he did not overhear the conversation between the police officers and his supervisor. See id. ¶ 33. Simos then told Noble that he would be subjected to a drug and alcohol screening. See id. ¶ 34. Noble asked Simos if this suspension was a "racial thing," because Crouch was white, but Simos gave no reply. See id. ¶ 36; see also Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 36.

Noble was screened and suspended for three days pending the results. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 35. The screening was negative, and Noble was immediately reinstated with full pay for the three-day suspension. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 37. Noble suffered no additional consequences. See id.

That same day, on June 11, 2010, Noble and a coworker were standing outside the Western Avenue shop when a foreman came by and "balled up his fist and raised it back and came in a striking motion towards" him. See id. ¶ 38. Noble believes this happened on a different day. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 38. Regardless, that same day, Noble was tasked with driving employees to a 2010 Chicago Blackhawks Stanley Cup parade and was told to "get out of [a] van," an "order" which Noble did not follow. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 39. No adverse employment consequences followed this van incident. See id. ¶ 40.

D. August 13, 2010, Incident

The last incident at issue occurred on August 13, 2010, when a foreman accused Noble of leaving his tags on the train, an infraction that could justify termination. See id. ¶ 41. But Noble is certain that, on August 13, 2010, he had all his tags with him. See id. ¶ 43. Noble asserts that he suffered chest pains as a result of the incident, spent a day in the hospital, and could not work overtime the following weekend. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 44.

Since August 13, 2010, Noble has been on medical leave. See id. ¶ 45. Noble has not had any further dealings or interactions with Metra or its employees since August 13, 2010. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 46.²

II. Legal Standard

"The court shall grant summary judgment 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court gives "the non-moving party the benefit of conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences that could be drawn from it." Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 794 (7th...