Allen v. City of Chicago, 92 C 4122.

Decision Date02 July 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92 C 4122.,92 C 4122.
Citation828 F. Supp. 543
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
PartiesHenry ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, A Municipal Corporation, City Council of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, Individually and as Mayor of the City of Chicago, Glenn E. Carr, Individually and as Commissioner, Department of Personnel, Defendants.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Nathaniel R. Howse, Howse & Howse, R. Eugene Pincham, Philander Scott Neville, Jr., Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs.

Kelly Raymond Welsh, COR Susan R. Lichtenstein, Anita K. Modak-Truran, Barbara Susan Smith, Terence J. Moran, City of Chicago, Law Dept. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, IL, for defendants.

William Franklin Marutzky, Chicago, IL, for Robert Loverde.

Philander Scott Neville, Jr., Chicago, IL, for Willie Reynolds and Reginald Johnson.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ASPEN, District Judge:

Plaintiffs, present and former employees of the City of Chicago, bring this putative class action against the City of Chicago, the Chicago City Counsel, Richard M. Daley (individually and as Mayor of the City of Chicago), and Glenn E. Carr (individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Personnel), alleging: (1) race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.; (2) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.; (3) impairment of the right to enforce contracts as guaranteed under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (4) political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and association; and (5) discriminatory distribution of federal funds in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Presently before the court are (i) plaintiffs' motion for class certification regarding claims of race discrimination, and (ii) defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for class certification is denied and defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

Beginning in May of 1989, the City of Chicago (the "City") initiated a program designed to reorganize its work force. Pursuant to this plan, the City eliminated the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Planning, the Department of Public Works, and the Building Board of Appeals. As of October, 1991, these departments had employed approximately 1,045 city workers. In January of 1992, the City created the Department of Fleet Management (462 employees), the Department of General Services Bureau of Public Engineering (607 employees), the Department of Environment (65 employees), the Department of Planning and Development (88 employees), and the Department of Transportation (340 employees). Additionally, the City entered into contracts with private companies and persons to perform jobs previously fulfilled by city employees. In the process of this restructuring, a large number of employees were laid off, demoted and discharged from city employment. At the same time, the City transferred employees to similar positions in other departments, promoted city employees and hired new workers. In all, the City's reorganization affected approximately 2,834 city employees.

As a group, plaintiffs claim that the City's reorganization had a disproportionate impact on black and hispanic employees, those over forty years of age, and those who were political opponents of Mayor Daley. In support of these allegations, plaintiffs assert: (1) 62% of those employees affected by the reorganization were either black or hispanic; (2) 52% of the city workers hired through the restructure were white, while whites comprise only 37.9% of the City's population; (3) a majority of the black and hispanic employees adversely affected by the reorganization were over 40 years of age, while white employees under the age of 40 were hired; and (4) a number of the employees affected by the restructure were supporters of the late Harold Washington and Eugene Sawyer, political opponents of Mayor Daley.

Of the 62 plaintiffs named in the first-amended complaint, only ten have filed charges of race discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and have received notices of right to sue in the United States District Court. These ten individuals seek to act as representatives of the putative class regarding race discrimination, and their individual circumstances can be summarized as follows. Henry Allen, a 59 year old black man, was employed with the Department of Aviation from 1976 to June 30, 1991, at which time he was laid off because of a reduction of staff. Allen claims that he was discriminated against in that it took him 5½ years to receive his first promotion and 4½ years to receive his second, while certain white employees were promoted at a more rapid pace. After Allen was laid off, a number of white employees were promoted within the department. Allen supported the campaigns of both Mayor Washington and Mayor Sawyer.

Julius Body, a 39 year old black man, began his employment with the Department of Aviation on November 2, 1987, as a Security Guard. On January 1, 1992, the City eliminated the position of Security Guard and created the position of Security Officer. Body applied for the position of Security Officer, subjecting himself to a written test, a urine test, and a psychological test. Body was not selected for the position and, on March 6, 1992, along with 39 other Security Guards (38 of which were black), he was laid off. While the City laid off 39 black Security Guards from the Department of Aviation, the City hired, promoted or retained certain white Security Officers. Body supported the campaigns of both Mayor Washington and Mayor Sawyer.

Jane Cole, a 59 year old black woman, began her employment with the Department of Housing on July 11, 1979. Over the years she has held the positions of Planning Intern, Senior Research Assistant, Loan Processing Officer Assistant, Loan Processing Officer and, most recently, Relocation Representative. Cole was laid off from her position as Relocation Representative on December 31, 1991. Cole alleges that race played a role in her termination as certain white employees with less seniority were not laid off. Specifically, she was not afforded an opportunity to move back to her previous position as a Loan Processing Officer, which was occupied by a white person with less seniority at the time Cole was laid off.

Eddie Ellen, a 43 year old black man, was laid off on December 31, 1991, after four years as the Coordinator of Energy Conservation in the Department of General Services. Many of Ellen's white co-employees were automatically transferred from the Department of General Services to the newly formed Department of Environment, which assumed the responsibility for energy management. Despite a gratuitous interview during which Ellen was led to believe that he was going to receive a position with the new department, Ellen was not reemployed. Ellen supported the campaigns of both Mayor Washington and Mayor Sawyer.

Angel Jimenez, a 32 year old hispanic man, began his employment with the Department of Aviation in 1987, as a Security Guard. As previously indicated, on January 1, 1992, the City eliminated the position of Security Guard and created the position of Security Officer. Jimenez applied for the position of Security Officer in August, 1991, and February, 1992. Nonetheless, Jimenez was not selected for the position and, on March 6, 1992, he was laid off. While the City laid off 40 Security Guards (consisting of Jimenez and 39 black men) from the Department of Aviation, the City hired, promoted or retained certain white Security Officers.

John McMullin, a 55 year old black man, began his employment in the Department of Housing as a Relocation Representative in 1968, serving in that capacity for 24 years. He was laid off on November 26, 1991. McMullin alleges that race played a role in his termination as other white employees within the Department of Housing were not laid off despite possessing considerably less experience than McMullin. Although two white employees have resigned from the department since McMullin's lay off, leaving vacant positions, McMullin has not been called back to work. McMullin actively supported the campaign of Mayor Washington.

Janet Moore, a 50 year old black woman, began her employment in the Mayor's Office of Employment Security on September 28, 1981. Since the commencement of her employment she has served as an Eligibility Specialist, an Eligibility Review Specialist, and an Employability Review Specialist I. Moore had applied for the position of Employability Review Specialist II, but the position was given to a white female. Moore was laid off on December 31, 1991. On July 1, 1992, Moore was called back to work as a Clerk II in the Police Department. In this capacity she is currently receiving approximately $10,000 less per year than she had received while employed as an Employability Review Specialist I. Additionally, Moore claims she is currently being discriminated against on the basis of race as she and other black city employees were not permitted to bid on positions at the Police Department in the new IUU Unit, a unit which is currently comprised of all white employees. According to Moore, these white employees in the IUU Unit perform the same tasks as she and other black employees, but receive a higher wage. Moore supported the campaigns of both Mayor Washington and Mayor Sawyer.

Fredrick O'Neal, a 43 year old black man, was employed as a Principal Systems Engineer in June of 1988, in the Bureau of Telecommunications, Department of General...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Douglas v. Evans
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 12 Mayo 1995
    ...of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship." 42 U.S.C. § 1981, see also Allen v. City of Chicago, 828 F.Supp. 543, 560 (N.D.Ill.1993); Mass v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.Supp. 1530, 1534 Section 1981 protects all persons, Caucasian and non-Caucasian ......
  • Bryant v. New Jersey Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 17 Febrero 1998
    ...of Chicago, 864 F.Supp. 1493, 1506 (N.D.Ill.1994); Miller v. Phelan, 845 F.Supp. 1201, 1207 (N.D.Ill.1993); Allen v. City of Chicago, 828 F.Supp. 543, 565 (N.D.Ill.1993); Scelsa v. City University of New York, 806 F.Supp. 1126, 1140 (S.D.N.Y. District courts within this circuit have also fo......
  • Henry v. Dow Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 31 Julio 2009
    ...accept the allegations of the plaintiff in support of the motion as true. The merits of the case are not examined. Allen v. Chicago, 828 F.Supp. 543, 550 (N.D.Ill., 1993). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the class should be certified. The court then listed the five requiremen......
  • Baines v. Masiello
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 6 Octubre 2003
    ...551-52 (N.D.Ca.1994) (city may not be held liable under Section 1985 for conspiring with city council members); Allen v. City of Chicago, 828 F.Supp. 543, 564 (N.D.Ill.1993) (no Section 1985 conspiracy because mayor, commissioner of personnel, and city aldermen are members of same municipal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Environmental racism claims brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 25 No. 2, March 1995
    • 22 Marzo 1995
    ...they, like the federally funded institutions subject to the Title, receive federal money. (172) See, eg., Allen v. City of Chicago, 828 F. Supp. 543, 565 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hosp., 824 F. Supp. 769, 777-78 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Scelsa v. CUNY, 806 F. Supp. 1126, 1140 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT