Rankin v. Chi. Park Dist.

1

Stanley Rankin, Plaintiff, v. Chicago Park District, J.D. Ostergaard, and Sidney Lewis, Defendants

No. 20 CV 794

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

September 18, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Lindsay C. Jenkins United States District Judge

Stanley Rankin (“Rankin”) brings suit against his former employer the Chicago Park District (“Park District”) and Park District employees J.D. Ostergaard (“Ostergaard”) and Sidney Lewis (“Lewis”) for employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 90]. The motion is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Rankin on all remaining counts of Rankin's amended complaint.

I. Background

The following facts are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and attached exhibits. [See Dkts. 92, 93, 94 95, 106.] These facts are undisputed except where a dispute is noted.

Rankin began working for the Park District in 2014 as a Seasonal Attendant. Rankin is Black and was 58 years old at the time of incidents giving rise to this lawsuit. During his employment, Rankin was a member of Service Employees International Union Local 73 (“Union”). His employment was subject to the Union's January 1, 2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Park District (“CBA”). Rankin is classified as a “career service employee.” [Dkt. 92, ¶ 20.]

The Park District is a local public entity that maintains and operates over 600 parks, sports fields, beaches, museums and other facilities. The Park District's governing body is its Board of Commissioners (“Board”), which is made up of seven members. The Park District also has a Personnel Board that oversees personnel and disciplinary policy and renders final decisions in employee discipline appeals. The Personnel Board consists of two members of the Board of Commissioners, along with the Director of Human Resources (“HR”). The Park District's HR Department and HR Director are responsible for overseeing and carrying out the employment policies of the Personnel Board. They are also responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Park District's Code of Conduct and instituting discipline. HR Managers have “frontline responsibility” for resolving employee conflicts, enforcing the Park District's Code of Conduct, and initiating discipline for infractions. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Michael Simpkins (“Simpkins”) (who is Black and was born in 1961) was the Park District's HR Director. Janet Ortiz (“Ortiz”) (who is Hispanic and was born in 1989) was the HR Manager responsible for employee discipline in the North Region, which includes the park where Plaintiff worked.

The employee discipline process is controlled by the Park District's Code of Conduct, Disciplinary Guidelines, and any applicable CBA. The Disciplinary Guidelines group employee misconduct into three categories, Groups “A”, “B”, or “C”, with Group A being the most serious. Pursuant to the Disciplinary Guidelines, Group A misconduct includes “committing, attempting, or threatening physical violence other than in self-defense on Park District property or while on duty”. Group B misconduct includes “direct disobedience to lawful orders from a supervisor”. Group C misconduct includes any “misconduct other than misconduct identified as Group A or Group B misconduct”. [Dkt. 92, ¶ 14.] The CBA provides a table of penalties applicable to the groups of misconduct in the Disciplinary Guidelines:

Group A: Termination for the first offense, absent mitigating circumstances justifying a less serious penalty.

Group B: 1st offense: 3-5 day suspension; termination may be called in for appropriate cases.

2nd offense: 5-day suspension or termination.

Group C: 1st offense: oral, written, or 1-3 day suspension.

2nd offense: 1-5 day suspension.

3rd offense: 5-day suspension or termination.

[Dkt. 92, ¶ 15.] Pursuant to the CBA, while the Park District generally follows progressive discipline, it may depart from this principle if “an act is sufficiently severe.” [Id., ¶ 16.]

If a suspension or discharge may be warranted, a Corrective Action Meeting (“CAM”) is scheduled. The CAM is facilitated by the HR Manager. During the CAM, the HR Manager gathers facts and the employee is afforded a chance to respond to allegations of misconduct and present evidence in his defense. The purpose of the CAM is to allow the HR Manager to gather information from the employee and his chosen representative regarding the specific charges and to afford the employee an opportunity to present his side. Following the CAM, the HR Manager may conduct a follow-up investigation based on information provided by the employee. After the CAM, the HR Manager, in consultation with the HR Director and the Park District's Law Department, generates a CAM Notice of Disposition announcing if the charges were sustained, and if so, the discipline that will be imposed. The discipline can range from a written reprimand to termination, depending on the severity of the offense.

Before a career service employee like Rankin can be terminated, he has the right to a hearing before a hearing officer appointed by the Personnel Board. The hearing officer conducts a hearing pursuant to the rules of evidence and issues a recommended decision. A dissatisfied employee can file written exceptions to the recommended decision with the Personnel Board. The Personnel Board rules on the hearing officer's recommended decision and any timely filed exceptions by accepting, rejecting, or modifying the recommended decision. Personnel Board decisions are subject to administrative review in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

About three years after Rankin began his employment with the Park District, he was transferred to Berger Park. (The summary judgment record is largely silent as to Rankin's earlier work history or why he was transferred, although Rankin's brief hints at “personal issues” between himself and his supervisors.) At Berger Park, Plaintiff's supervisor was Ostergaard, a white male born in 1984. On January 28, 2019, Rankin filed an Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) Charge against the Park District alleging race and age harassment by Ostergaard. [Dkt. 92, ¶ 26.] The parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements provide no details on the factual basis for this charge. The charge attached to the amended complaint indicates that Plaintiff felt that Ostergaard was micro-managing him and being overly critical, which Plaintiff attributed to his race and age. [See Dkt. 27 at 4-5.]

Rankin was on sick leave from his position at Berger Park from April 8 to April 18, 2019. On the afternoon of April 9, 2019, Rankin visited Mandrake Park, which is also managed by the Park District. Rankin had worked at Mandrake Park prior to being reassigned to Berger Park. There is an office building adjacent to Mandrake Park, in which the Park District leases space for its staff offices and indoor programming. The office building is owned by the Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”). The CHA building has a patron entrance where patrons are required to sign in to enter the facility. The CHA building also has a secure, employee-only entrance in the back of the building. CHA employs security from Skytech Security at the CHA Building. Skytech Security has authority to restrict access to the CHA building.

Mandrake Park's supervisor was Lewis, who is Black and was born in 1979. Lewis began working for the Park District in October 2014 and has been Mandrake Park supervisor since October 2016. As the Mandrake Park Supervisor, Lewis had the authority to restrict access to the CHA Building. [Dkt. 92, ¶ 23.] According to Lewis, he was in his office on the afternoon of April 9, 2019 and heard a “loud” banging sound coming from the employee entrance. [Id., ¶ 28.] Lewis went to the employee entrance and observed Rankin attempting to enter the CHA Building through the employee entrance. Lewis informed Rankin that he was not permitted to enter because he was not a Mandrake Park employee and he had no Park District business to conduct at the building. Rankin refused to leave the employee entrance doorway and insisted that he be permitted to enter. He positioned himself in a way that impeded the closure of the employee entrance door. A verbal and physical confrontation between Lewis and Rankin ensued. During the approximately ten-minute confrontation, Lewis made multiple requests for Rankin to move himself from the employee entrance, which Rankin refused. During the incident, Lewis did not make any comments about Rankin's race or age. Lewis recorded a portion of the confrontation on his cell phone. [Dkt. 93.]

Three other individuals were present during the confrontation: Program and Event Coordinator Thomas Hayes (“Hayes”), who is Black and was born in 1993; Mandrake Park Physical Instructor Charles George (“George”), who is Black and was born in 1994; and Etaria Lyles (“Lyles”), a Skytech Security Officer whose race is not identified in the parties' Local Rule 56.1 materials. During the altercation, Park District staff called the police. The police arrived and ordered Rankin to leave, which he did. [See Dkt. 92, ¶ 30.] A police report was generated.

Following the incident, Lewis drafted an incident report and Lewis Hayes, George, and Lyles drafted witness statements describing the occurrence with Rankin. According to Lewis' witness statement, after he told Rankin that he needed to leave, Rankin “pushed, bumped, and shoved” Lewis in “an attempt to bulldoze his way into the building.” [Dkt. 92, ¶ 32.] According to...