Taylor v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.

TRUDY TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and KAREN SAFFOLD, Defendants.

Case No. 18 C 7874

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

August 27, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

Trudy Taylor was removed from positions as a school principal at two public schools in Chicago. In connection with her removal from those positions, she has sued the Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Karen Saffold, an administrator for the Board, asserting claims under federal and Illinois law. The defendants have moved for summary judgment.

Background

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Taylor is an African American female. In June 2012, she entered into a contract with the Board and the local school council of Jesse Owens Elementary Community Academy (Owens Academy) to serve as Owens Academy's principal for a four-year term ending on June 30, 2016. Under the contract, Taylor's position as principal could be terminated before that date for specified reasons, including the "closure" of the school, the "permanent merger" of the school "into another attendance center," and Taylor's resignation. Defs.' L.R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 6.

In the spring of 2013, the Board considered whether to close dozens of schools in the district. Taylor contends that Owens Academy was not on the initial list of schools that the Board planned to close but later was added to the list of schools proposed for closure. It is undisputed that, in April 2013, the Board held two community meetings at which members of the public could share their views on the closure of Owens Academy and a public hearing at which the Board presented to a hearing officer evidence concerning the closure.

Taylor did not speak at the public hearing. The parties dispute whether she spoke at the community meetings. The Board has submitted certified reporters' transcripts from those meetings, which do not reflect that Taylor made any comments on the record. Taylor, however, states in an affidavit that she attended at both community meetings and "spoke out publicly against the proposed closure of Owens," Pl.'s Ex. 2 ¶ 5, and she testified during her deposition that she spoke at the community meetings as well.¹

Taylor's affidavit reflects that she distributed brochures opposing the closing of Owens Academy to parents and community members. It is undisputed that she also prepared a presentation regarding the closure of Owens Academy. Other employees of Owens Academy presented it at the community meetings and the public hearing.

The schools in the district are divided into networks. At the time, Saffold was thechief of a different network from the one to which Owens Academy was assigned. The defendants contend that Saffold was not involved in the conversations about closing Owens Academy at all. Taylor's affidavit reflects that Saffold attended a telephone conference with network chiefs and school principals at which "principals were warned not to publicly speak out against the proposed school closings if they did not want to lose their jobs." Pl.'s Ex. 2 ¶ 5.

The defendants assert that the Board closed Owens Academy on June 30, 2013 and reassigned students returning to Owens Academy to a nearby school, Samuel Gompers Fine Arts Options Elementary School (Gompers School). Taylor disputes this. In her affidavit, she states that the Board "never really" closed Owens Academy but kept the building open to students in the grades Owens Academy had served and "just renamed the school to Gompers South." Pl.'s Ex. 2 ¶ 8. During her deposition, Taylor testified that Owens Academy and Gompers School merged and "became one" school. Pl.'s Ex. 1 at 66:12-17. When defense counsel asked Taylor whether Owens Academy was "permanently merged" with Gompers, Taylor responded, "Yes." Pl.'s Ex. 1 at 70:13-15. At some point, Gompers School (the merged school that also consisted of the Owens Academy's former building) was renamed to Jesse Owens Elementary Community Academy (the name of the school at which Taylor had served as principal).

On June 30, 2013, the day the Board contends it closed Owens Academy, the Board removed Taylor from her position as the principal of that school. The parties dispute the nature of Taylor's removal. The defendants have submitted an e-mail indicating that the Board offered Taylor "continued employment in [her] current job title at [her] current rate of pay through October 31, 2013" and that, after that date, shewould need to find "a new opportunity" or she would "be laid-off [sic]." Defs.' Ex. 7 at BOE 003749. By contrast, Taylor's affidavit reflects that she "accepted" the Board's "offer for [her] to become a Citywide principal in order to mitigate [her] damages" and that she "did not have any assigned duties" in that role. Pl.'s Ex. 2 ¶ 10.

Taylor did not find a new position by October 31, 2013. The defendants present a resignation form, purporting to bear Taylor's signature, indicating that she resigned from her position on or soon after that date and that the resignation became effective on November 8, 2013. Taylor contends that she never resigned from her position and did not fill out, complete, or sign that form.

The Board also has submitted documentation indicating that, among other things, Taylor received a payout for the value of her unused vacation days. Taylor, however, states in her affidavit that the Board did not pay her salary and benefits "for the entire term of the agreement" between her, the Board, and Owens Academy's local school council. Pl.'s Ex. 2 ¶ 3.

Taylor went on to work for the Board in other positions. Between December 2013 and July 2015, she served as a principal at three different schools in the district.² Starting in July 2015, Taylor became a principal at another school, George Washington Carver School.

The Board contends that at Taylor was an interim principal—an at-will employee who has not entered into a contract with the board and may be dismissed at any time—in each of the principalship roles she held after December 2013, including the positionat Carver School.³ Taylor contends that she had implied contracts with the Board during this time. Her affidavit also reflects that her supervisor from July 2015 until August 2015, Krish Mohip, "promised" her that she "should expect" to work at Carver School at least one year. Pl.'s Ex. 2 ¶ 12.

Soon after Taylor became the principal at Carver School, Carver became part of the network for which Saffold was the chief of schools.⁴ In this role, Saffold directly supervised principals at about thirty schools, including Taylor. Among other things, Saffold reviewed and monitored the principals' performance.

The defendants contend that Taylor's job performance at Carver was not satisfactory. For example, Saffold testified that, among other things, Taylor did not create a system to collect and monitor teachers' lesson plans, she did not have a system by which she would timely observe lessons and give feedback to teachers, and the school was chaotic. By contrast, Taylor contends that her performance was satisfactory and that Saffold harbored personal animosity toward her and set out to negatively influence her career.

In November 2015, Saffold sent Taylor a memorandum of understanding that identified "[i]nstructional concerns" with Taylor's leadership and listed "[e]xpectations moving forward." Defs.' Ex. 19 at BOE 000382. The parties dispute whether Taylor met the expectations set out in the memorandum after that point.

Meanwhile, Taylor applied to Carver's local school council for a contract principal position at Carver. If awarded the position, she would have been awarded a four-year contract that, similar to her contract with Owens Academy, the Board could have terminated early only for specified reasons. In December 2015, the school council voted on two candidates for that position: Taylor and Michael Onofrio, a white male. Neither Taylor nor Onofrio received the necessary number of votes from the council to become a contract principal, so the council asked the school district's chief executive officer Janice Jackson to interview them and select the new principal or designate someone to do so.

In January 2016, Jackson and Elizabeth Kirby, the chief of school strategy and planning, interviewed Taylor. Taylor contends that, at the interview, Jackson and Kirby did not discuss her professional background or her interest in the position. Taylor's affidavit reflects her belief that Saffold had "convinced" them not to hire her and "that they only arranged for the meeting because they were required by law to interview [her], not because they were open to considering [her] for the Carver principalship position." Pl.'s Ex. 2 ¶ 17. For her part, Kirby testified that she found Taylor to be "unprepared" for the interview and "unable to articulate" how she would "improve the school." Defs.' L.R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 63.

Jackson and Kirby also interviewed Onofrio. After conducting the interviews, Jackson and Kirby determined that neither Taylor nor Onofrio were qualified for the principal position. They recommended that the school counsel search for a different candidate. Taylor contends that she was qualified for the position and that Saffold had negatively influenced their assessment of her.

On January 20, 2016, Taylor was terminated from her position as the principal of Carver School. The parties dispute how, why, and by whom Taylor was terminated. The defendants contend that Taylor was terminated due at least in part to her performance, Kirby made the final recommendation to terminate her, and Jackson approved of that recommendation. Taylor contends that Saffold made the decision to terminate her, and this was based on, among other things, personal animus against Taylor and/or discrimination against women and African Americans.

On or around January 27, 2016, Saffold learned from a staff member about some...