Koen v. S. Seven Health Dep't

• Docket Number: 23-cv-2657-DWD
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: ROBBIE M. KOEN, JORDAN HOLDER, RHONDA SUMNLERS, KANEESA MALLORY, and ROMELLO ORR, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN SEVEN HEALTH DEPARTMENT and RHONDA RAY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

1

ROBBIE M. KOEN, JORDAN HOLDER, RHONDA SUMNLERS, KANEESA MALLORY, and ROMELLO ORR, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN SEVEN HEALTH DEPARTMENT and RHONDA RAY, Defendants.

No. 23-cv-2657-DWD

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN, United States District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 3), which was the subject of a hearing on November 20, 2023, as well as pre and post-hearing memorandums. (Docs. 3, 97, 98, 100, 101). Therefore, the Court is now prepared to rule. For the reasons explained below, the request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

I. Background

Plaintiffs initiated this case on August 1, 2023, when they filed a Complaint for Damages for Racial Discrimination and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1). That same day Plaintiffs also filed an Ex Parte Motion for the Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) (Doc. 3), which requested a temporary restraining order or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction. The Court denied the aforementioned Ex Parte Motion in part and deferred it in part on August 3, 2023. (Doc. 25). More specifically the Court denied the request for a temporary restraining order without notice, but deferred ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 25). The Court indicated it would schedule a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction at the earliest possible date. (Doc. 25).

Over the course of the next month, however, Plaintiffs attempted to serve each Defendant in advance of a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction. At a Status Conference held on September 5, 2023, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the Complaint to dismiss unnecessary parties. (Doc. 74). That request was granted by the Court. (Doc. 74).

A. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Damages for Racial Discrimination and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”) (Doc. 84), dismissing one Plaintiff and all but one Individual Defendant. Plaintiff Koen, an African American, is an employee of Defendant Southern Seven Health Department (“Southern Seven”) who had been the site supervisor of the Head Start Facility in Cairo, Illinois, since 1996. (Doc. 84, pgs. 2-3). Plaintiff Sumnlers, who is not an African American, and Plaintiffs Mallory and Orr, who are African Americans, have children enrolled at the Cairo Head Start Facility. (Doc. 84, pg. 2). Defendant Southern Seven is allegedly a body politic, incorporated under Illinois law and governed by a board of directors, serving seven counties in southern Illinois. (Doc. 84, pg. 2). Defendant Ray, as the Executive Director of Defendant Southern Seven, is one of Plaintiff Koen's supervisors. (Doc. 84, pg. 3). She reports to Defendant Southern Seven's Board of Directors. (Doc. 84, pg. 3).

Collectively, Plaintiffs allege “Defendants herein decided to close the Cairo Head Start facility for reasons motivated by race as opposed to the implementation of objective criteria.” (Doc. 84, pg. 1). According to Plaintiffs, Cairo, Illinois, “is predominately African-American in its racial make up.” (Doc. 84, pg. 3). Further, as to Plaintiff Koen, Plaintiffs allege she “received regular raises and bonuses,” and was considered “a valuable employee,” before 2018. (Doc. 84, pg. 3). Around that time, however, Defendant Ray allegedly joined Head Start. (Doc. 84, pg. 3). She and two other individual employees allegedly made Plaintiff Koen's “life.. .substantially more difficult.” (Doc. 84, pg. 3).^[1]

Specifically, Defendant Southern Seven's treatment of the Cairo Head Start Facility, generally, and Plaintiff Koen, specifically, changed in the following ways: (1) Plaintiff Koen “was met with a caustic response” when, in late 2019 or early 2020, she asked the Head Start administrator about a directive regarding the number of enrolled students, “plainly indicating that she was not welcome to ask questions” despite being urged to ask questions about the program in the past; (2) “a campaign of harassment” began against Plaintiff Koen, in July 2020, after learning that a staff member contracted COVID-19 and she, but not Defendant Ray or the Head Start administrator, wanted to inform other employees of that reported illness; (3) Plaintiff discovered the maintenance department was “ignoring work orders,” including a work order to replace the windows in the classrooms at the Cairo Head Start Facility, that were delivered to the Head Start administrator; (4) the Cairo Head Start Facility was “consistently” short staffed when employees called in sick because the Head Start administrator “routinely” decided not to send temporary replacements to fill in; (5) after Plaintiff Koen learned, on May 1, 2023, that Defendant Southern Seven planned to close the Cairo Head Start Facility, the Head Start administrator, in a conversation with Plaintiff Koen, the human resource administrator, and a parent, informed the parent that “she and other administrators were unable to speak with Koen and other Cairo staff because Koen had filed grievances and had complained about the closing of the” Cairo Head Start Facility; (6) Plaintiff Koen filed an internal grievance against Defendant Ray on July 26, 2023, after Defendant Ray, “in an aggressive manner and in an attempt to harass and intimidate” Plaintiff Koen, “put her finger near Koen's face and falsely charged her with calling Senators, Representatives, and other stakeholders” to come and view the Cairo Head Start Facility; and (7) Plaintiff Koen was given a notice of lay-off, effective August 4, 2023. (Docs. 3-1; 84, pgs. 3-5).

Plaintiffs allege Defendant Southern Seven, which operates nine other Head Start facilities in southern Illinois where “[t]he children enrolled.. .are predominantly white in racial background,” gave no consideration to closing any of the nine other Head Start facilities. (Doc. 84, pg. 3, 5). Also, Plaintiffs allege “substantial repairs have been and are being done at” the Egyptian, Metropolis, Mounds, and Vienna Head Start Facilities. (Doc 84, pg. 5). Despite budgeted funds for the Cairo Head Start Facility, however, “money is not being spent for repairs in Cairo.” (Doc 84, pg. 5). Based on the above allegations, “Plaintiffs allege.[the Cairo Head Start Facility] would still be operating if [it] were located in a city that was predominately white, where the children enrolled are predominantly white, and where the Site Supervisor was also white.” (Doc. 84, pg. 5).

Relatedly, Plaintiffs allege discrimination by Defendants “against Plaintiff Koen because she is a confident, articulate, and strong woman of African-American descent.” (Doc. 84, pg. 5). That discrimination is allegedly related to “the advocacy she took in relation to her questioning [of] Defendants' decision to close... [the Cairo Head Start Facility] by reaching out to elected officials to come and inspect” the Facility. (Doc. 84, pg. 5). In Plaintiffs' view, “Southern Seven employees and officials were resentful of the fact that Plaintiff Koen stood up for the rights of persons of African American descent with regard to.[the] treatment of” the Cairo Head Start Facility. (Doc. 84, pg. 6). The claims arose under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 (Count I) and 1983 (Count II). (Doc. 84, pgs. 6-8).

On September 28, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 86) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After it was fully briefed, the Motion was granted in part and denied in part, resulting in a dismissal of Count I with prejudice. By virtue of this ruling, the Court indicated it would consider the request for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 94).

B. Plaintiffs' Request for a Preliminary Injunction and Defendant Southern Seven's Memorandum in Opposition

In the request for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs indicate the right in need of protection “is the ability to have quality and affordable day care for small pre-school children.” (Doc. 3, pg. 2). Plaintiffs state their interests cannot be measured by money, and the damage inflicted during litigation could never be repaired. That is, Plaintiffs allege the closure of the Cairo Head Start Facility, which occurred on August 4, 2023, will cause irreparable harm since “the families.using the facility have, as a practical matter, no other place to take their children.” (Doc. 3, pgs. 4-5). The families “will be forced to either put their children a[t] risk or will have to forfeit employment.” (Doc. 3, pg. 5).

Further Plaintiffs argue the reason provided by Defendants for closing the Cairo Head Start Facility is a pretext. (Docs. 3, pg. 2; 3-4). Defendants allegedly concluded that the Facility is “in need of repairs that will cost $1,000,000.00.” (Doc. 3, pg. 2). However, in Plaintiffs' view, the claim that the Facility is unsafe, absent those repairs, is false. (Doc. 3, pg. 3). They reason, “if the claim were actually believed by the Defendants, they would have shut down the facility at the time they made that assessment.” (Doc. 3, pg. 3). Also, Plaintiffs allege, as they did in the Amended Complaint, Defendants have not paid to make repairs at the Cairo Head Start Facility, despite their decision to pay to make repairs at other Head Start facilities. (Doc. 3, pg. 2). Plaintiffs further allege, as they did in the Amended Complaint, the Cairo Head Start Facility is the only Head Start facility with “a predominantly African-American enrollment” and “an African-American Site Supervisor.” (Doc. 3, pg. 2). In light of these allegations, Plaintiffs state “[t]he only salient...