Outley v. The City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 12 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 17 C 8633 |
| Parties | MICHAEL OUTLEY, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ALAN STARK, RANDY CONNER, and ROBERT MUSSEN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MICHAEL OUTLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ALAN STARK, RANDY CONNER, and ROBERT MUSSEN, Defendants.
No. 17 C 8633
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
October 12, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GARY FEINERMAN JUDGE
In a previous lawsuit, Michael Outley sued the City of Chicago and three officials of its Department of Water Management (“DWM”)-then-Commissioner Thomas Powers, Deputy Commissioner Alan Stark, and Chief Operating Engineer Paul Mazur-alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-2000e et seq., and Illinois common law. Outley v. City of Chicago, No. 13 C 1583 (N.D. Ill.) (“Outley I”) (Lefkow, J.), ECF No. 118. The district court in that suit granted summary judgment to the defendants. Id., ECF Nos. 204-205 (reported at 354 F.Supp.3d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2019)). The court later amended the judgment to clarify that the suit did not resolve any claims arising from Outley's failure to receive a promotion in 2017. Id., ECF No. 220, at 2.
In the present suit, Outley brought claims against the City, Stark, and two other DWM officials-Commissioner Randy Conner and Chief Operating Engineer Robert Mussen-alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Titles VI and VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., his union's collective bargaining agreement, and the Shakman Accord. Doc. 55. (Docket entries in this suit are cited as Doc. __, while docket entries in Outley I are cited as Outley I, ECF No. .) On Defendants' Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the court dismissed Outley's Title VI and § 1981 claims and his claims for breach of the collective bargaining agreement and the Shakman Accord. Docs. 112-113 (reported at 407 F.Supp.3d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2019)). The court also dismissed parts of Outley's Title VII, ADEA, and § 1983 claims on claim preclusion and timeliness grounds. 407 F.Supp.3d at 759-62.
With discovery closed, Outley moves for summary judgment as to liability on the hostile work environment and constructive discharge components of his Title VII claim, his § 1983 claim against Mussen, and his ADEA claim. Doc. 215. Defendants cross-move for summary judgment on all claims that survived dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. 220. Defendants' motion is granted as to all claims except the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the City and related § 1983 claim against Mussen, and Outley's motion is denied.
Background
Because the parties cross-move for summary judgment, the court ordinarily would view the disputed facts in the light most favorable to Defendants when considering Outley's motion and in the light most favorable to Outley when considering Defendants' motion. See First State Bank of Monticello v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 555 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[B]ecause the district court had cross-motions for summary judgment before it, we construe all facts and inferences therefrom in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). But because the court will largely grant Defendants' motion and deny Outley's, the facts are set forth as favorably to Outley as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit. See Garofalo v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 754 F.3d 428, 430 (7th Cir. 2014). At this juncture, the court must assume the truth of those facts, but does not vouch for them. See Gates v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 916 F.3d 631, 633 (7th Cir. 2019).
In its Rule 12(b)(6) opinion, the court held that the preclusive effect of the Outley I judgment and the applicable statutes of limitations imposed temporal limits on Outley's remaining claims. 407 F.Supp.3d at 759-62. As for claim preclusion, the court held that Outley's § 1983 claim against Stark and Title VII claims were “precluded to the extent that they arise from pre-2017 conduct.” Id. at 761. That language was imprecise, as the correct cut-off date for claim preclusion is August 24, 2016, not December 31, 2016. Claim preclusion based on a judgment entered in a prior suit bars only those claims that arose before the operative complaint in that suit was filed. See Ellis v. CCA of Tenn. LLC, 650 F.3d 640, 652 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim preclusion generally does not bar a subsequent lawsuit for issues that arise after the operative complaint is filed.”). Outley filed the operative complaint in Outley I on August 24, 2016. Outley I, ECF No. 118. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the court's Rule 12(b)(6) opinion, Outley may not premise his § 1983 claim against Stark or any Title VII claim, including his hostile work environment claim, on events that took place before August 24, 2016.
The statute of limitations imposes additional restrictions on Outley's Title VII and ADEA claims. As the court explained in its Rule 12(b)(6) opinion, and with one exception, because Outley filed his EEOC charge on August 18, 2017, he cannot bring any Title VII or ADEA claim arising from conduct or events that took place before October 22, 2016. 407 F.Supp.3d at 761. The exception is that no part of his Title VII hostile work environment claim is barred by the statute of limitations, ibid. (citing Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 118 (2002)), so that claim can rest on events as early as August 24, 2016. In sum, Outley's § 1983 claims and the hostile work environment component of his Title VII claim may be premised only on events that took place on or after August 24, 2016, and his ADEA claim and the other
components of his Title VII claim may be premised only on events that took place on or after October 22, 2016.
A. General Background
Outley, a Black man born in 1955, started working for the City in 1987. Doc. 239 at ¶¶ 1-3. In 1993, Outley joined DWM-the department responsible for delivering water to Chicago residents-and was assigned to the Lexington Pumping Station. Doc. 242 at ¶ 9; Doc. 239 at ¶ 5; Doc. 119 at ¶ 18. DWM employees in the positions of Chief Operating Engineer (“COE”) and Assistant Chief Operating Engineer (“ACOE”) oversee the operations of pumping stations. Doc. 119 at ¶¶ 23, 26. Outley was promoted to ACOE at Lexington in 1998. Doc. 239 at ¶ 6. He remained in that role until he left the City's employ on August 1, 2017. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.
Conner was the Commissioner of DWM from June 2, 2017 until he retired in 2020, so he served as Commissioner during the final two months of Outley's employment. Doc. 242 at ¶ 3. Stark was the Deputy Commissioner of DWM from September 1, 2011 until he retired in August 2018. Id. at ¶ 5. Mussen was an ACOE from 2006 to 2015, when he was promoted to COE and assigned to the Lexington Pumping Station, becoming Outley's direct supervisor. Id. at ¶ 7; Doc. 239 at ¶¶ 39-40.
Outley filed administrative charges with the EEOC in 2012 and 2013 alleging race discrimination by the City. Doc. 239 at ¶¶ 19-20. As noted, Outley filed another EEOC charge in mid-August 2017, shortly after he left the City's employ, which provides the basis for administrative exhaustion in this suit. Id. at ¶ 53.
B. 2017 Failure to Promote
In 2017, Outley applied for a promotion to COE, but DWM chose to promote John Murphy, who is white, and Katherine Ealy, who is Black. Doc. 242 at ¶¶ 25-26. Ealy had less
seniority than Outley. Doc. 239 at ¶ 23. Although Outley initially asserted that Ealy turned 40 years old in 2017, Doc. 216 at ¶ 22; Doc. 241 at 11, he later acknowledged that Ealy was around 50 years old at that time. Doc. 255 at 13.
DWM used a two-part process, a written test followed by an interview, to determine which candidate to promote to COE. Doc. 242 at ¶ 21. The written test pertinent to this case was administered on May 23, 2017. Doc. 226-1 at 16-18. On the first part of the test, Outley received a score of 61, while Ealy and Murphy scored 58, and on the second part of the test, Outley answered 16 out of 20 questions correctly, while Ealy and Murphy answered 15 questions correctly. Id. at 18-19.
The nine candidates who passed the written test were interviewed on July 7 and July 10, 2017. Doc. 242 at ¶ 21; Doc. 226-1 at 19; Doc. 228-1 at 53. Each candidate except for Outley was interviewed by both Andre Holland and Mark Henmueller. Doc. 242 at ¶ 24; Doc. 228-1 at 54. Henmueller asked Stark to be recused from Outley's interview because Henmueller was concerned that he could be a witness in Outley's then-pending lawsuit (Outley I). Doc. 243-1 at 3. Stark granted that request, and Daryl Materre subbed in for Henmueller, such that Outley was interviewed by Holland and Materre. Ibid.; Doc. 242 at ¶ 24.
Holland and Materre are Black. Doc. 242 at ¶ 24. Neither individual made comments about Outley's race during the interview, Doc. 222-12 at 10:6-10, and Outley did not hear anyone make age-related remarks to him, Doc. 242 at ¶ 59. Outley testified, however, that in prior interviews, Materre gave him worse assessments than those he received from white interviewers. Doc. 222-12 at 9:23-10:1.
After the interviews concluded, the officials involved in hiring held a “consensus meeting” to discuss which candidates were best suited for the COE role. Doc. 242 at ¶ 22.
Martin Wise, a recruiter from the City's human resources department, took notes at the meeting. Doc. 222-9 at ¶ 1; Doc. 242 at ¶ 15; Doc. 228-1 at 54-55.
Defendants assert that Outley gave incomplete and inaccurate answers during the interview, citing Wise's declaration averring to that fact. Doc. 222 at ¶ 27. Wise's contemporaneous notes from the consensus meeting corroborate his declaration. Materre remarked that Outley did not understand the “function of [a] jet ejector, ” “gave an abstract definition of what a condenser is, ” and “didn't fully answer the [third] question.” Doc. 228-1 at 54. Holland commented that Outley “didn't understand what a condenser did” and “didn't explain clearly” an issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial