Kralka v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508
| Decision Date | 18 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13 C 1072,13 C 1072 |
| Parties | Susan Kralka, Plaintiff, v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, d/b/a City Colleges of Chicago, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Susan Kralka, Chicago, IL, pro se.
Alexandra C. Relias, Valerie Depies Harper, City Colleges of Chicago, Office of the General Counsel, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Susan Kralka (“Plaintiff) filed a complaint, pro se, against Defendant Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, d/b/a City Colleges of Chicago (“Defendant”) alleging that she was discriminatorily terminated on the basis of her Ukrainian national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant now moves for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted in its entirety.
Plaintiff, a Ukrainian woman, was employed, at all relevant times, as an Adult Educator by Defendant City Colleges of Chicago, a community college district in the Malcolm X College Adult Education off-campus Program (“Adult Education Program”). From May 23 through August 13, 2011, the Adult Education Program provided twelve-week Adult Education courses, including ESL classes, at multiple off-campus sites, including Northwestern Settlement, Erie House, St. Hyacinth, and Nuestra Senora Church. Plaintiff, who has over 35 years of experience teaching English as a Second Language (“ESL”) and is highly knowledgeable of Ukrainian language and culture, was assigned to teach sixteen hours of ESL classes at the Northwestern Settlement, Monday through Thursday, from 5:00 pm to 9:00 p.m. Plaintiff was a member of the labor union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, AFL–CIO and its Local 3506, and covered by its collective bargaining agreement with City Colleges.
Per the request of City Colleges' Chancellor's Office, the Office of the Inspector General for City Colleges of Chicago (“OIG”) conducted a review of the Adult Education Program during the Summer 2011 semester, in part, to observe and document adult educators' and students' attendance during scheduled class hours. During the course of the OIG's general audit, the OIG observed that Plaintiff was not present at the start of her scheduled classes and, consequently, opened an individualized investigation into Plaintiff on suspected time fraud. As part of its investigation, the OIG conducted nine days of surveillance in July 2011 at the Northwestern Settlement during Plaintiff's scheduled class hours of 5:00 to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. During this time, despite submitting certificates of attendance reflecting that she was generally present from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. and should be paid for four full hours of teaching, Plaintiff was not once observed to be present for the entire scheduled class hours. Instead, Plaintiff shortened her teaching hours by an average of one hour and twenty-four minutes per day.
During the OIG investigator's interview of Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not deny that during the Summer 2011 semester, she routinely arrived an hour late to her scheduled 5:00 pm class, but claimed she did so because of the “the very hot summer,” her students need to refresh themselves after work, and due to severe property damage from a severe storm on June 30, 2011. Plaintiff also stated that she ended her class thirty minutes early so the woman who worked at the front desk could go home to her sick mother. While Plaintiff asserts that she added class time after the summer semester ended, she did not keep any documentation of the attendance at such classes or receive approval to hold additional or substitute classes after the close of the semester.
OIG concluded its investigation into Plaintiff on November 21, 2011 and found that Plaintiff violated Defendant's Work Rules 7 (), 11 (falsification of her attendance record), 17 & 37 (misappropriation and waste of City Colleges' funds in that on various occasions she misrepresented that she taught classes from 5:00–9:00 p.m.), 38 (inattention to her duties as an adult educator), and 50 (conduct unbecoming a public employee). Based on these Work Rule violations, particularly Rules 17 & 37, the Inspector General recommended that Defendant terminate Plaintiff and designate her as ineligible to be re-hired.
Based on the OIG's findings and recommendations, City Colleges issued a Notice of Pre–Disciplinary Hearing on December 7, 2011 to Plaintiff, notifying her that a disciplinary hearing was to occur the following day at which discipline, up to and including termination, would be considered. Plaintiff received a copy of the OIG's Investigative Summary, and Plaintiff was able to discuss the pending charges with her union representatives, Mark Freeman and Judith Sherman. Sherman was present at Plaintiff's December 8, 2011 Disciplinary Hearing and Plaintiff had an opportunity to rebut the charges. On February 29, 2012, Defendant advised Plaintiff that, as a result of the evidence presented at the Disciplinary Hearing, President Munroe recommended Plaintiff's termination to the Board of Trustees. On April 12, 2012, the Board terminated Plaintiff's employment with Defendant and designated her as ineligible for rehire.
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 5, 2012 alleging that she was wrongfully terminated due to unlawful discrimination based on her Ukrainian national origin.
In addition to the investigation into Plaintiff, the OIG's general audit of the Adult Education Program led to further investigation into the suspected misconduct by two non-Ukrainian adult educators, “Adult Educator 1” and “Adult Educator 2,” during the Summer 2011 semester. Adult Educator 1 adjusted his scheduled class time from a four-hour morning class and two-hour night class to a three-hour morning class and a three-hour night class without authorization. The OIG investigators observed that Adult Educator 1 violated Rules 7, 11, and 38, but found that Adult Educator 1 did not violate Work Rules 11 and 37 because OIG investigators observed him teaching the full scheduled twenty-four hours of class time per week, for which he was paid. The OIG did not recommend termination, but did recommend that City Colleges take “appropriate disciplinary action” against Adult Educator 1 for adjusting his class schedule without authorization, which resulted in a written reprimand being issued by Defendant.
OIG investigated Adult Educator 2 for suspected student attendance fraud, which could potentially affect funding for the Adult Education Program. OIG investigators determined that Adult Educator 2 submitted attendance records indicating that all eighteen enrolled students attended class, when only nine and four students, respectively, were physically observed present by OIG investigators. OIG investigators additionally found that on multiple dates, it appeared that one individual was signing in for all recorded students present. Adult Educator 2 resigned while the OIG's investigation was still pending, but the OIG determined that Adult Educator 2 violated Work Rule 11. Upon the OIG's recommendation, City Colleges designated Adult Educator 2 as ineligible for re-hire.
The OIG also continued to investigate their Adult Education Program during the Fall 2011 Semester. During this period, the OIG determined that two female Adult Educators had been less than 15 minutes late to their scheduled classes, but did not recommend termination because they had provided legitimate reasons for their tardiness, which had been infrequent and minimal. Defendant terminated non-Ukrainian Adult Educator 3 upon the OIG's recommendation and finding in 2011 that he violated Rule 17, as well as Rules 7, 11, 12, 17, 38, 42, and 50, when he fraudulently misrepresented that he was teaching GED classes for Defendant while he was tutoring for his other employer during the same time period.
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 O f Attica, Ind., 259 F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir.2001). The Court's “function is not to weigh the evidence but merely to determine if there is a genuine issue for trial.” Bennett v. Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 694 (7th Cir.2002).
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 facts demonstrating 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, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (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) (). 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 nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. Lesch v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467, 471 (7th Cir.2002...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Kalamata, Inc.
- Hancock v. Sotheby'S, 17 C 7446
-
Robertson v. Susan Lofton & Bd. of Educ. of Chi., Case No. 13 C 3205
...Douglas factor to the extent she attacks Lofton's assessment of her job performance. See, e.g., Kralka v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508, 75 F. Supp. 3d 909, 914-15 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (holding teacher failed to create fact issue on whether she was meeting employer's legitimate expec......