Giwa v. City of Peoria

• Citation: 917 F.Supp.2d 850
• Decision Date: 08 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. 09–1306.,09–1306.
• Parties: Olajide GIWA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois

917 F.Supp.2d 850

Olajide GIWA, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendant.

No. 09–1306.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois.

Jan. 8, 2013.

Olajide O. Giwa, Peoria, IL, pro se.

Sonni Choi Williams, City of Peoria, Peoria, IL, for Defendant.

OPINION and ORDER

JOHN A. GORMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 43). The motion is fully briefed and I have carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented by the parties. As explained herein, the motion is granted.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT GENERALLY

The purpose of summary judgment is to “pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summaryjudgment should be entered if and only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Jay v. Intermet Wagner Inc., 233 F.3d 1014, 1016 (7th Cir.2000); Cox v. Acme Health Services, 55 F.3d 1304, 1308 (7th Cir.1995).

In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court may not weigh the evidence or resolve issues of fact; disputed facts must be left for resolution at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The court's role in deciding the motion is not to sift through the evidence, pondering the nuances and inconsistencies, and decide whom to believe. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.1994). The court has one task and one task only: to decide based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.

The court is to examine all admissible facts, viewing the entirety of the record and accepting all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, Erdman v. City of Fort Atkinson, 84 F.3d 960, 961 (7th Cir.1996); Vukadinovich v. Board of School Trustees, 978 F.2d 403, 408 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied,510 U.S. 844, 114 S.Ct. 133, 126 L.Ed.2d 97 (1993); Lohorn v. Michal, 913 F.2d 327, 331 (7th Cir.1990); DeValk Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 811 F.2d 326, 329 (7th Cir.1987); Bartman v. Allis–Chalmers Corp., 799 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied,479 U.S. 1092, 107 S.Ct. 1304, 94 L.Ed.2d 160 (1987), and construing any doubts against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Trotter v. Anderson, 417 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir.1969); Haefling v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 169 F.3d 494, 497 (7th Cir.1999).

In considering a motion for summary judgment, however, there is one occasion when the court is not obligated to accept as true the non-movant's version of facts: “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).

Neither the moving party nor the responding party may simply rest on allegations; those allegations must be supported by significant probative evidence. First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). See also Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (when the moving party has met its burden, nonmoving party must do more than show some “metaphysical doubt” as to material facts). Instead, the parties must identify the evidence that will facilitate the court's assessment. Waldridge, 24 F.3d at 922. Thus, as FRCP 56(e) makes clear, a party opposing summary judgment may not rely on the allegations of the complaint. Rather:

[T]he adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. See, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See also, Local Rule CDIL 7.1(D).

A scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is not sufficient to oppose successfully a summary judgment motion; “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

If the undisputed facts indicate that no reasonable jury could find for the party opposing the motion, then summary judgment must be granted. Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., 47 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir.1995), citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. If the non-moving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial, then summary judgment is proper. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Waldridge, 24 F.3d at 920.

As the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[D]istrict courts are not obliged in our adversary system to scour the record looking for factual disputes and may adopt local rules reasonably designed to streamline the resolution of summary judgment motions.” Herman v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 400, 404 (7th Cir.1989). See also, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd v. Tapy, 896 F.2d 1101, 1103–04 (7th Cir.1990); L.S. Heath & Son, Inc. v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc., 9 F.3d 561, 567 (7th Cir.1993). The Local Rules of this Court specify the form, content and timing for all motions for summary judgment and responses and replies thereto. See, Local Rule CDIL 7.1(D).

II. LAW OF TITLE VII

Under Title VII it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 USC § 2000e–2. Title VII prohibits only discrimination based on protected status; it does not prohibit discrimination based on personality conflicts or other non-protected bases. See, for example, Jajeh v. County of Cook, 678 F.3d 560, 569 (7th Cir.2012), citing Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998).

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment in a disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff must produce some evidence that (1) intentional discrimination (2) was more likely than not (3) the motivation (4) behind the challenged employment decision. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993).

A plaintiff may prove disparate treatment under Title VII by using either the direct method or the indirect method of proof. Rhodes v. Illinois Department of Transportation, 359 F.3d 498, 504 (7th Cir.2004). The direct method of proof permits a plaintiff to show—by either direct or circumstantial evidence—that his employer's decision to take an adverse job action against him was motivated by a prohibited purpose, such as race or national origin. Id.

If a plaintiff cannot prevail under the direct method of proof, he must proceed using the burden-shifting analytical framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See, Adams v. Wal–Mart Stores Inc., 324 F.3d 935 (7th Cir.2003). Under that framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which creates a rebuttable presumption of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment action. Upon articulation of such a reason, the presumption of discrimination vanishes, and the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was merely pretext for discrimination. See, for example, Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253–56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Actually, at this third stage, the plaintiff's burden under this shifting burden analysis “merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that [ ]he has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Id. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089. In other words, plaintiff's burden returns the plaintiff to his original position, namely the position of proving intentional discrimination. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 510, 113 S.Ct. 2742;Nawrot v. CPC International, 277 F.3d 896, 905 (7th Cir.2002).

A prima facie case of discrimination requires evidence that (1) plaintiff was a member of the protected class; (2) plaintiff was qualified for the job in question or was meeting the employer's legitimate performance expectations; (3) plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the employer treated similarly situated persons not in a protected class more favorably. Bragg v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., 164 F.3d 373, 376 (7th Cir.1998).

There is no dispute that Plaintiff is a member of a protected class. He is Nigerian and raises issues of disparate treatment on the basis of both race and national origin.

One element of the prima facie case is that the employee was satisfying the employer's legitimate performance expectations up until the time of his termination. Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 302 F.3d 735, 741 (7th Cir.2002). This includes adherence to employer's rules and regulations. Id.; cf. Lim v. Trustees of Indiana University, 297 F.3d 575, 581 (7th Cir.2002) (plaintiff failed to establish that she was meeting university's legitimate requirements regarding research and publishing); Salvadori v. Franklin School District, 293 F.3d 989, 996 (7th Cir.2002) (fact that plaintiff had received satisfactory...