Jordan v. Chi. Transit Auth.
| Decision Date | 09 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 C 3791,10 C 3791 |
| Parties | Shelly Jordan, Plaintiff, v. Chicago Transit Authority, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Shelly Jordan brought this action against Defendant Chicago Transit Authority (the "CTA") alleging that he was terminated based on race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). The case is presently before the court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Shelly Jordan began working for the CTA as a track maintenance worker, or "trackman," on March 22, 1999. The CTA operates a public transportation system that covers the City of Chicago and 35 of its surrounding suburbs. As a trackman, Jordan performed various duties in the maintenance, inspection, repair, construction, signaling, and flagging activities associated with track construction and maintenance work. Jordan is African-American.
A central component to this case is the CTA's administrative holding program, "Area 605." When CTA employees miss work for medical reasons, they spend up to 26 weeks on short-term disability before the CTA places them in Area 605. To leave Area 605 and return to work,CTA employees must complete a three-step procedure. First, the employee must be found fit to return to work by CTA's medical staff. Next, the employee must provide documentation from the physicians who treated them for the medical conditions that led to the employee's placement into Area 605 verifying that the conditions have been resolved. Third, the CTA must determine that the employee's former worksite has an available and budgeted position for the employee.
After two years in Area 605, the employee must either (1) file for a one-year extension, (2) return to active work status, (3) apply for an Occupational Injury Disability Pension, (4) Apply for a Non-Occupational Disability Pension, (5) or retire; otherwise, the employee will be administratively separated.
While at work in December 2003, Jordan fell on the tracks and injured his back. After 26 weeks of short-term disability, the CTA placed Jordan into Area 605 because of mental and physical issues. In Area 605, Jordan was monitored by Mike Montagna, who works as an Occupational Adjustment Specialist in CTA's Human Resources Department. Montagna reports to Larry Wall, who worked as CTA's General Manager of Benefit Services from 2001 to 2011.
After his accident, Jordan received medical care from a primary care physician he had been seeing since the 1990s, Dr. Leonard Robinson, as well as a psychologist that he began seeing in 2004, Dr. Joyce MacLaren. After being in Area 605 for two years, Jordan requested and received a one-year extension.
When Jordan called Montagna to discuss his return to work on December 13, 2006, Montagna said "why do you want to know this for, I heard you moved to Las Vegas and you only want to know your last date to return by so you can wait until the last minute to return towork." After Jordan told Montagna that it was none of his business, Montagna informed Jordan that he would get back to him about what documentation he needed to provide. Before the conversation ended, Jordan heard Montagna say "you people." Although Jordan called Montagna the next day and left a voicemail, Jordan never heard back from Montagna. When Jordan told Wall about Montagna's comment, Wall advised Jordan to write a letter to the CTA describing the circumstances of his telephone conversation with Montagna. Jordan wrote this letter on January 8, 2007.
On January 29, 2007, Jordan appeared at CTA headquarters to discuss his return to work with Montagna and Wall. Prior to their meeting, CTA medical staff gave Jordan an eye exam, a drug test, and a physical examination. These tests all found that Jordan was fit for work. After Jordan gave Montagna his medical documentation as well as a note from Dr. Robinson that said he was fit to return to work without restrictions, Montagna said "you black people," called Jordan a "nigger," and then walked out of the office. Montagna denies ever using these terms.
At this point, Montagna left his office to discuss Jordan's return-to-work note with Wall. Montagna felt that Jordan's note was insufficient because Jordan failed to provide any medical documentation discussing his mental health. Wall confirmed that Jordan needed to provide additional psychological records as a condition for his return to work. When Wall delivered this message to Jordan, he also told Jordan that he should no longer deal with Montagna but should contact Wall directly. Although the CTA claims that Wall gave Jordan until February 3, 2007 to hand over these additional medical records, Jordan claims that Wall only told him to make his medical documents with Dr. MacLaren available by releasing them.
Later that day, Jordan visited Dr. MacLaren's office and signed written medical releaseforms so that the documents could be released. After signing the release, Jordan left Wall a voicemail informing him that he had signed the forms and his medical documentation could now be released with a call from the CTA. Wall did not return Jordan's call. Jordan called Wall again the next day and left an identical voicemail message, but the CTA claims that neither Wall nor Montagna were ever contacted by Jordan after their meeting.
On February 8, 2007, the CTA administratively separated Jordan. According to the CTA, Jordan was terminated for failing to provide sufficient medical documentation that was required for him to return to work following a three-year medical absence. The CTA also claims that Wall made the decision to administratively separate Jordan and that no CTA employee recommended or suggested this decision to Wall. Jordan has alleged two other CTA trackmen, Donald McNichols and Mark Cantone, were treated more favorably than himself. However, neither McNichols nor Cantone were ever placed in Area 605.
Summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue of triable fact exists only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Pugh v. City of Attica, Ind., 259 F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Once the moving party has set forth the basis for summary judgment, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must go beyond mere allegations and offer specific factsshowing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The nonmoving party must offer more than "[c]onclusory allegations, unsupported by specific facts" in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)). A party will be successful in opposing summary judgment only if it presents "definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion." EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2000).
I consider the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and I draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Lesch v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467, 471 (7th Cir. 2002). I will accept the non-moving party's version of any disputed fact, however, only if it is supported by relevant, admissible evidence. Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 92 F.3d 560, 562 (7th Cir. 1996).
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise 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 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). As the Supreme Court has explained, "the obligation imposed by Title VII is to provide an equal opportunity for each applicant regardless of race." Rudin v. Lincoln Land Cmty. Coll., 420 F.3d 712, 719 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Furnco Const. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 579 (1978)). A plaintiff bringing a title VII race discrimination claim seeking to defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment can proceed under the direct or indirect method of proof. Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835, 845 (7th Cir.2012); Johnson v. Gen. Bd. Of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 733 F.3d 722, 727-28 (7th Cir. 2013); Sitar v. Ind. Dept. of Transp., 344 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2003).
Jordan argues that he can proceed under the direct method of proof on his Title VII discrimination claim. Under the direct method, a plaintiff must offer direct or circumstantial evidence that "points directly" to a discriminatory reason for the employer's action. Atanus, 520 F.3d 662, 671-72 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Burks v. Wisconsin Dep't of Trans., 464 F.3d 744, 751 n.3 (7th Cir. 2006)). Direct evidence proves a particular fact without the reliance upon inference or presumption. Rudin, 420 F.3d at 720 (). Direct evidence is rare. Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 653 F.3d 582, 587 (7th Cir. 2011). Direct evidence "can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of discriminatory intent by the defendant or its agents." Id. (citing Troupe v. May Dep't Stores, 20 F.3d 734, 736 (7th Cir. 1994)).
Circumstantial evidence, on...
To continue reading
Request your trial