Armour v. Homer Tree Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | 15 C 10305 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH ARMOUR and JULIE CASTRO, Plaintiffs, v. HOMER TREE SERVICES, INC., HOMER TREE CARE, INC., HOMER INDUSTRIES, LLC, HOMER MANAGEMENT, LLC, and RONALD REPOSH, individually, Defendants. HOMER MANAGEMENT, LLC, and HOMER TREE SERVICE, INC., Counterclaimants, v. ELIZABETH ARMOUR, Counterdefendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Armour ("Armour") and Julie Castro ("Castro") bring this action against Defendants Homer Tree Service, Inc.,1 Homer Tree Care, Inc., Homer Industries, LLC, Homer Management, LLC, (together, "the Homer Companies"),and Ronald Reposh ("Reposh"). Plaintiffs claim they were fired from their jobs at the Homer Companies in retaliation for speaking out against racially discriminatory hiring practices, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They also assert that they were fired for refusing to participate in activities that would violate various laws, rules, and regulations, as prohibited by the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 174/20. For her part, Armour further alleges that Defendants breached her employment contract and that Reposh sexually assaulted and battered her, for which she seeks to hold the Homer Companies liable. In turn, Homer Tree Service and Homer Management have filed various counterclaims against Armour, including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
Defendants seek partial summary judgment on Armour's complaint, and Counterclaimants Homer Tree Service and Homer Management seek summary judgment on their breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion counterclaims. Defendants also seek summary judgment on Castro's complaint in its entirety. For the reasons that follow, the motions [146] [149] are granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs are former employees of one or more of the Homer Companies. See Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶ 12, ECF No. 148; Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Castro) ¶ 5, ECF No. 151. Armour was hired on July 7, 2014, by Reposh. Defs.' LR56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ("Armour") ¶¶ 12, 32. At all times relevant to this dispute, Reposh served as president of Homer Tree Service, Homer Tree Care, and Homer Management, and managing member of Homer Industries. Id. ¶ 7.
Upon her hiring, Armour entered into an employment agreement with Homer Tree Service to serve as its Chief Executive Officer. Id. ¶ 13. The agreement provides that "[Homer Tree Service] and its affiliate companies are desirous of engaging the services of [Armour] to operate, coordinate, and manage the office and financial affairs of [Homer Tree Service] and its affiliate companies." Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 2, ECF No. 155; Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmts. J.A., Ex. A (Armour Dep. (8/26/16)), Ex. 4. As CEO, Armour reported to Reposh, and Reposh afforded Armour substantial discretion in carrying out her duties. Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶ 39.
Homer Tree Service, along with Homer Tree Care and Homer Industries, paid Armour's salary through January 2015. Id. ¶ 38. Armour's employment agreement remained with Homer Tree Service throughout her employment; however, in January 2015, she became CEO of Homer Management, which paid her salary thereafter. Id. ¶¶ 6, 53-54.3 Homer Management "provides support to several of the other companies" and "was created to manage the other companies and their payrolls." Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶¶ 6, 55. Despite this,Armour received certain payments from the other Homer Companies in January 2016. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 6.4
Armour hired Castro to serve as Director of Human Resources on October 7, 2014. Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Castro) ¶¶ 5, 7. Castro was initially hired as an employee of Homer Tree Service. Id. ¶ 5. Like Armour, however, her position was moved under Homer Management in January 2015, and Homer Management paid her thereafter. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. Castro, for her part, asserts that "she [ ] was the Director [of Human Resources] for all of the Homer entities," and testified that she did work for all of them. Pl. Castro's LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 7; see Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmts. J.A., Ex. C (Castro Dep.) at 82:1-4.
The parties dispute various facts concerning Plaintiffs' qualifications at the time of their hiring. Defendants claim that Armour misrepresented to Reposh that she had obtained a bachelor's degree from DePaul University, and that this fact was crucial to his decision to hire her. Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶¶ 31-33, 90, 92. Armour, however, maintains that, prior to her hiring, she informed Reposh that she had not yet formally obtained her bachelor's degree. She claims that Reposh responded by telling her that this would not be an issue and she should nevertheless indicate that she had a bachelor's degree on her resume. Pl. Armour's LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶¶ 31-33, 90, 92;5 see Armour Dep. (8/26/16) at 127:8-23. Asfor Castro, Defendants claim that she misrepresented on her resume that she was responsible for managing human resources at Home Depot, that she therefore was not qualified, and that Armour hired her anyway. See Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Castro) ¶¶ 9-10. For her part, Castro asserts that she in fact was tasked with managing human resources at Home Depot. See Pl. Castro's LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶¶ 9-10.
According to Plaintiffs, a number of unlawful practices occurred at Homer during their terms of employment.6 Plaintiffs' objection to and refusal to participate in these practices preceded their termination.
First, Plaintiffs claim that, during their employment, Reposh told them "on various occasions" that he did not want African-Americans working for the HomerCompanies because of their race. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 10.7 Defendants dispute that Reposh made this statement or that he refused to hire African-Americans because of their race. Defs.' Resp. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs further assert that they "repeatedly advised Reposh that his racist views and discriminatory practices were unlawful . . . and that they could not follow his illegal directives." Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 12. In response to Plaintiffs' complaints, Reposh purportedly "berated" Plaintiffs angrily, threatened them with termination, and "attempted to undermine them in retaliation." Id. ¶ 13. Defendants dispute that Reposh threatened Plaintiffs with termination. Defs.' Resp. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 13.8
Plaintiffs cannot identify any specific time they spoke out against Reposh's discriminatory hiring practices other than February 2015. Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶ 52; Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Castro) ¶ 53. In February 2015, Plaintiffs describe a meeting that occurred at which both of them, along with Reposh, were present. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 14; see Castro Dep. at 49:9-53:24. At that meeting, Castro gave Reposh resumes and applications she had obtained at a job fair. Castro Dep. at 49:9-16. Castro claims that Reposh instructed Plaintiffs that "[they] were not to consider [the applicants] because most applicants were African-American." Id. at 52:8-12. Castro testified that she told Reposh, "[w]e have to consider them." Id. at 53:6-10. She further claims that, following the meeting with Reposh, she forwarded the resumes and applications to Aaron Hocking, a manager at one of the Homer Companies, told him that there were many qualified applicants in the group, and "left him to review them." Id. at 50:14-23. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' account of the meeting on various grounds. Defs.' Resp. Pls.' 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 14. Notwithstanding what occurred at this meeting, Plaintiffs concede that they never interviewed, hired, or otherwise considered any African-American applicants during their tenure. Pl. Armour's LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 47; Pl. Castro's LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶¶ 31-32, 56.
Several months later, on August 17, 2015, Hocking hired Taurus Moore, an African-American applicant. Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶ 43; Defs.' Resp. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 18; Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmts. J.A., Ex. BB, at 11. Moore is the only African-American applicant that Defendants have identified by name as being hired by the Homer Companies during Plaintiffs' employment. SeeDefs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶ 43; Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Castro) ¶ 24.9 Plaintiffs were not involved in interviewing and hiring Moore. Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶ 44; Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Castro) ¶ 25.10 Castro attested that she could not recall whether Moore's resume or application was in the resumes from the job fair discussed in February 2015, but that she forwarded his online application at a later date to Hocking, who in turn reviewed it and made the decision to interview and hire him. Castro Dep. at 58:22-59:22. One day after Moore was hired, on August 18, 2015, Reposh instructed Armour to fire Castro. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 47; see also Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Castro) ¶ 75. According to Castro, Armour did not provide a reason, but explained that she was merely following Reposh's instructions. Pl. Castro's LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. ¶ 7511; Castro Dep. at 220:8-14. Shortly thereafter, on August 21, 2015, Reposh fired Armour. Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 77; see also Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. (Armour) ¶ 69.
At some point around July 27, 2015, according to Plaintiffs, Reposh directed them to "terminate injured employees upon their return to work or else make them as uncomfortable [sic] to foment their departures (such as turning off the air conditioning)." Pls.' LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶¶ 43, 45. Reposh disputes that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial