Perez-Garcia v. Clyde Park Dist.

LAURA PEREZ-GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. CLYDE PARK DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 13 C 1357

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

October 5, 2015

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are two separate Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendant Clyde Park District (the "Park District") [ECF No. 123], and Defendants Brian Dominick, Jose Rodriguez, Alex Rueda, Frank Szczech (incorrectly spelled as "Szchech"), Mark Nowak, Tony Martinucci, and Mark Kraft (the "Individual Defendants") [ECF No. 126]. Defendants have also submitted a combined Motion to Strike the affidavit of Plaintiff Laura Perez-Garcia ("Perez-Garcia") [ECF No. 160].

For the reasons stated herein, the Individual Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, the Park District's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and the Motion to Strike is denied as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

Before relating the factual background of this case, the Court must first address Defendants' Motion to Strike Perez-Garcia's affidavit. Without citing a single contradictory statement, Defendants urge the Court to strike the entire affidavit because it is "repeatedly contrary to [Perez-Garcia's] established deposition testimony on numerous matters." (Defs.' Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 160, at 3 ¶ 10.)

The Seventh Circuit has "long followed the rule that parties cannot thwart the purposes of Rule 56 by creating 'sham' issues of fact with affidavits that contradict their prior depositions." Bank of Ill. v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162, 1168 (7th Cir. 1996). However, courts generally disfavor motions to strike. Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 379 F.Supp.2d 968, 971 n.1 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Moreover, Local Rule 56.1 "includes its own enforcement provisions," making motions to strike factual materials "superfluous." Id.

Defendants have already taken advantage of the enforcement provisions in Rule 56.1 by responding to each one of Perez-Garcia's additional factual assertions. The Court has considered these objections and is capable of determining which facts are inadmissible or otherwise improper. Defendants' Motion to Strike is therefore denied as moot.

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. The Park District manages the park and recreation facilities in the Town of Cicero, on the outskirts of Chicago. The ParkDistrict's Board of Commissioners (the "Board") approves all hiring and firing matters within the Park District and is comprised of five individuals — Jose Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), who serves as President, Brian Dominick ("Dominick"), Mark Nowak ("Nowak"), Alex Rueda ("Rueda"), and Frank Szczech ("Szczech") (the "Board Members"). Tony Martinucci ("Martinucci") serves as Executive Director of the Park District, and Mark Kraft ("Kraft"), who reports to Martinucci, serves as Recreation Director.

Perez-Garcia began working as an administrative assistant for the Park District in 2000. Her job responsibilities included managing receipts for Park District credit card charges, paying credit card bills, and processing payroll and check requests, among other things. (Pl.'s Resp. to Martinucci's First Set of Interrogs., Defs.' Ex. N, ¶ 3.) Park District employees typically turned credit card receipts into the business office, where Perez-Garcia worked, and if they failed to do so, Perez-Garcia would remind them by phone or e-mail to submit them. (Punzo-Arias Dep., Defs.' Ex. O, at 37:19-39:16.)

Perez-Garcia states in her affidavit that she consistently had to ask Martinucci and Kraft for receipts for purchases made on Park District credit cards — a fact that they dispute. Perez-Garcia testified at deposition that in 2005 and 2006, shealso began to observe charges on Martinucci's Park District credit card that she believed were not work related. On three occasions, Perez-Garcia drafted and sent internal memoranda to department heads, including Kraft and Martinucci, reminding them to submit their receipts. (Perez-Garcia Dep. Vol. I, Defs.' Ex. P, at 33:16-34:8.)

Perez-Garcia states in her affidavit that in 2007 and 2008, and again in 2011 and 2012, she took her concerns about the credit card charges to Rodriguez. She also states that she spoke to Rodriguez about Martinucci's other improper billing activities and showed him copies of related invoices. According to Perez-Garcia, Martinucci submitted invoices for expenses related to his daughter's volleyball team and a basketball team that he coached, and he requested that the Park District pay umpires and referees for games that had never taken place. At deposition, Rodriguez denied having any such conversations with Perez-Garcia. (Rodriguez Dep., Defs.' Ex. E, at 36:22-37:11.) However, Rueda testified that Rodriguez told him that Perez-Garcia had spoken to him about Kraft and Martinucci's improper credit card use. (Rueda Dep., Defs.' Ex. T, at 65:9-19.) In April 2012, Perez-Garcia, Kraft, and Martinucci, along with Town President Larry Dominick and several other employees, held a meeting. At the meeting, Perez-Garcia stated that she hadshared her concerns about Kraft and Martinucci's credit card use with Rodriguez.

In her affidavit, Perez-Garcia states that Martinucci cut off communications with her after the April meeting. However, this statement conflicts with previous deposition testimony in which Perez-Garcia stated that she had received an email from Martinucci that May. ( See, Perez-Garcia Dep. Vol. II, Defs.' Ex. Q, at 2 68:22-269:21.) Perez-Garcia also claims that Kraft and Martinucci began stripping away her job responsibilities. Perez-Garcia apparently lost certain duties related to payroll and staffing concession stands at soccer games. According to Martinucci, Perez-Garcia's concession stand duty was taken away because one staff member Perez-Garcia assigned had a "health issue" that should have precluded him from working. When Martinucci found out, he decided that "everything from here on out" in terms of concessions staffing would go through the recreation office. (Martinucci Dep., Defs.' Ex. R, at 58:21-62:1.)

Three relevant events took place in May 2012. First, Perez-Garcia began providing Park District documents to David Duran ("Duran"), a former Board member and family friend, "to show him some of the corruption" in the hope that "somebody would do something about it." (Perez-Garcia Dep. Vol. II, Defs.' Ex. Q, at 299:21-300:22.) The documents included copiesof invoices and checks. Sometime in the middle of 2012, Duran showed the documents to Rodriguez and Rueda, who suspected he had received them from Perez-Garcia. (Rueda Dep., Defs.' Ex. T, at 59:11-61:2; Rodriguez Dep., Defs.' Ex. E, at 42:20-51:1.) Rueda testified that the documents did not appear to show any impropriety. (Rueda Dep., Defs.' Ex. T, at 59:2-61:2.)

Second, Perez-Garcia took her concerns to the FBI. Although Perez-Garcia claims that Duran directed her to do so, Duran denies this, and Kraft, Martinucci, and Larry Dominick all testified that they did not know Perez-Garcia went to the FBI until after she filed this lawsuit.

Finally, that same month, two break-ins occurred at the Park District, prompting the Park District to change locks and install a security camera in the business office.

On September 14, 2012, the security camera was damaged. Security footage revealed a hand reaching up and tampering with the camera's wires. After reviewing the footage, the Board questioned Perez-Garcia and another Park District employee, Alfredo Cintron ("Cintron"). Cintron told the Board that he, Perez-Garcia, and Perez-Garcia's daughter Tanya were in the office when the camera was disabled. Though Perez-Garcia denied knowledge of the incident, and doubt remains as to whose hand can be seen in the video, Perez-Garcia was suspended with pay on October 22, 2012, the day after her meeting with the Board.

Several Board Members testified that they had never heard any negative feedback about Perez-Garcia prior to September 2012, and Kraft and Martinucci stated that they had no reason to criticize her performance before then. However, during her suspension, three instances of purported misconduct surfaced: (1) unauthorized purchases on the Park District's Sam's Club card, (2) false representations to the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ("IMRF"), and (3) a $6,000 overpayment to Tag's Tuckpointing ("Tag's"), a business owned by Perez-Garcia's husband.

Sometime after Perez-Garcia's suspension, Rodriguez learned that Perez-Garcia had used the Park District's Sam's Club card to make personal purchases. Although the parties dispute which items were purchased and how Rodriguez came to know this information, Perez-Garcia admits that she used the card to purchase personal items. However, she contends that employees were free to do so pursuant to Park District policy, as long as they provided reimbursement. Rodriguez, on the other hand, testified that personal purchases were not permitted, and Perez-Garcia was the only individual who used the Sam's Club card in this way.

Also during the suspension, Paul Nosek ("Nosek") — a Park District accountant who had taken over Perez-Garcia's role as IMRF agent — discovered that in 2006, Perez-Garcia falselyreported to the IMRF that she had resigned. Perez-Garcia received a refund of almost $4,000 before reenrolling in the fund. (Nosek Dep., Defs.' Ex. G, at 35:16-42:7.) Finally, Rueda and Nosek testified that they discovered what appeared to be an overpayment of $6,000 to Tag's in relation to work done at Cicero Stadium.

According to the Board, these three issues, in combination with the camera incident, led to its decision to terminate Perez-Garcia. The day after gathering for a meeting, on November 26, 2015, the Board sent Perez-Garcia her termination letter. Exactly who knew what at the time of the meeting is disputed, but each Board Member was aware of at least one of the issues...