Parker v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n, Case No. 12-cv-8275
| Decision Date | 14 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-cv-8275 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | HARRIET PARKER, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff Harriet Parker ("Parker") filed a thirteen-count First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against Defendants the Illinois Human Rights Commission ("IHRC" or "Commission") and IHRC Chairman Martin Castro ("Castro") in his personal capacity (collectively, "Defendants"). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). This court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Parker has three counts remaining against Defendants: (1) retaliation in violation of her First Amendment rights brought pursuant to § 1983 against Castro (Count I); (2) retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 brought pursuant to § 1983 against Castro (Count IV); and (3) retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Act") against IHRC. Before the court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) ("Motion"). For the reasons discussed in detail below, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The court takes the following facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and exhibits. The facts are undisputed unless expressly noted.
The IHRC is an agency of the state of Illinois. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 3.) Parker, an African-American female, served as the General Counsel for the IHRC from December 2007 to May 20, 2011. (Id. ¶ 1.) Parker's position as General Counsel for the IHRC was a Rutan-Exempt position.1 (Id. ¶ 6.) Although the parties disagree as to whether the position of General Counsel specifically, or a Rutan-exempt position generally, is a "political appointment," the parties agree that a Rutan-exempt position such as General Counsel of the IHRC serves at the pleasure of the Office of the Governor. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Castro was appointed by Governor Quinn as Chairman of the IHRC, a position he has held since December 2009. (Defs. 56.1 St., ¶ 2). Keith Chambers ("Chambers") has held the position of Executive Director of the IHRC since 2007. (Id., ¶ 9). As the Executive Director, Chambers serves as the Chief Operating Officer for the day-to-day operations of management, direction, and leadership. (Id.). Chambers works directly with Chairman Castro and the Commissioners of the IHRC. (Id.). One of Chambers' responsibilities was to conduct Parker's performance evaluations. (Id., ¶ 10).
As General Counsel, Parker performed the following duties: (1) advised and provided legal counsel for the Commissioners on cases pending before the IHRC for adjudication; (2) advised and consulted with the IHRC on issues which might affect policy, decisions, and actions of the IHRC; (3) drafted orders and briefs that were issued by the IHRC; (4) served as the Director of the Open Meetings Act; (5) conducted community outreach; (6) assisted with annual reports and audits; (7) drafted rules and regulations; (8) supervised legal and administrative staff; (9) assisted in the procurement of the staff for the IHRC; (10) trained Commissioners and staff; (11) monitored labor disputes; (12) responded to FOIA requests; (13) worked with the Chairmanof the IHRC on issues that were relevant to the IHRC; and (14) interacted with other State of Illinois agencies. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 11.)
Although the parties dispute whether Parker was required to perform all the above duties, it is undisputed that some of those duties are listed in the position description for General Counsel of the IHRC. For example, the duty to "[o]ffer advise [sic] and consultation to the Commission which may affect policy, decision, and actions of the agency" is listed in the position description. (Id.) In addition, the policy description states that the General Counsel advises on changes in administrative procedures, legislation, and Department recommendations which affect Commission activities. (Id.) The General Counsel also participates in drafting bills or amendments, or comments on the impact of proposed legislation. (Id.) Furthermore, Parker had a duty to assist in and cooperate with the Executive Director in creating, planning, developing, and implementing programs and procedures to lawfully carry out the statutory duties of the Commission. (Id.) Parker was also required to report any issues or situations that she believed would cause any type of "disgrace" to the State or generate adverse publicity. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 15.) Finally, Parker served as the Chief Ethics Officer for the IHRC. (Id. ¶ 14) As Chief Ethics Officer, if Parker observed an IHRC employee or Commissioner doing something she believed was unethical, she was required to report it to the Office of the General Counsel for the Illinois Governor ("OGC"). (Id.)
The allegations in Parker's FAC arise from the events surrounding a case pending before the IHRC, Rosetta Davis v. Elmbrook Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC (hereinafter the "Rosetta Davis case") in 2010. Rosetta Davis ("Davis"), an African-American female and complainant, was a nurse's aide who alleged discrimination against Elmbrook Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center ("Elmbrook"), the respondent. (Id.) Commissioners Marti Baricevic("Baricevic"), Robert Enriquez ("Enriquez"), and Gregory Simoncini ("Simoncini") (collectively, "Panel A") presided over the Rosetta Davis case while it was pending before the IHRC. (Id. ¶ 32) At the time of the Rosetta Davis case, Donyelle Gray ("Gray"), an African-American female, served as the Deputy General Counsel for the IHRC (Id., ¶ 33). Gray is currently the General Counsel for the IHRC. (Id. ¶ 33).
On November 18, 2010, Panel A heard oral argument in the Rosetta Davis case. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 37.) During oral argument, Parker testified, she observed Simoncini and Baricevic engage in behavior that she believed showed bias in favor of the complainant. Parker testified that she observed Simoncini repeatedly cut off counsel for respondent. (Id., ¶ 38.) Parker heard Baricevic state that she agreed with complainant's counsel's statement that the ALJ (administrative law judge) "could not have done a good job on the Recommended Order and Decision ("ROD") because he completed it within a few months." (Id., ¶ 38.)
Parker testified that she also observed Simoncini display inappropriate behavior toward Gray, who was present during the Rosetta Davis hearing. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 35.) In general terms, Parker testified that Simoncini was "basically very rude and vicious" towards Gray throughout the entire hearing. (Defs. 56.1 St. Ex. A at 59:12-14.) Parker testified that Panel A's decision in the Rosetta Davis Case in favor of complainant was contrary to the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA"). (Id., ¶ 43.)
Following the November 18, 2010 oral argument in the Rosetta Davis case, on November 22, 2010, Parker sent Castro an email asking to speak with him regarding the conduct of one of the Commissioners on one of the Panels. (Pls. St. Add'l Facts ¶ 4.) Parker testified during her October 20, 2014 deposition that she was referring to Simoncini and Panel A in her email to Castro. (Pls. St. Add'l Facts Ex. C, 75:8 to 78:14.) During their meeting, Parker described toCastro the facts of the Rosetta Davis case and explained the applicable rule of law and the standard of review. (Id., ¶ 40.) Parker opined that Panel A had come to the wrong decision, that Panel A was inappropriately rude toward Gray, and that Simoncini showed bias in favor of the complainant. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 40.)
Parker also complained about Simoncini's behavior to Jay Stewart ("Stewart"), Chief Legal Counsel for the OGC in the Governor's Office and to Velisha Haddox ("Haddox"), the IHRC liaison to the OGC. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 40.) Parker voiced the same concerns to Stewart and Haddox that she had with Castro. (Id., ¶¶ 41-42.) Parker told Stewart that Simoncini should be replaced because he was a negative presence on the Commission. (Id. ¶ 41.)
On November 23, 2010, less than one week after the oral argument in the Rosetta Davis Case, Parker submitted a monthly report to the OGC. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 44.) In the report, Parker stated, in a section entitled "Public Issues," that "we are experiencing serious difficulties with one of the Commissioners." (Id.) Parker stated that this Commissioner refused to follow the IHRA and refused to follow her legal counsel regarding the standard of review. (Id.) Parker also expressed her belief that this Commissioner was "determined to do what he wanted and was not interested in following the IHRA." (Id.) Lastly, Parker said, "[T]his Commissioner's behavior is in dereliction of the Act, and therefore, is not in furtherance of the interest of justice and has the potential of bringing shame upon the entire Commission, and upon the State." (Id.) The following two months, on December 6, 2010 and January 4, 2011, Parker submitted additional monthly reports to the OGC which repeated these views. (Id. ¶ 45.)
Castro received a call from Jennifer Koehler ("Koehler"), Deputy General Counsel for the OGC, indicating that Parker had complained in writing that Commissioner Simoncini and other Commissioners were acting outside the law in the Rosetta Davis case. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶46.) Castro told Parker that he did not want to interfere with her reporting responsibilities to the OGC, but to the extent there were any volatile issues, he would appreciate notice because he was surprised by the call from Koehler. (Id.)
On February 7, 2011, Parker, Castro, and Simoncini met to discuss Panel A's decision in the Rosetta Davis case. During the meeting, Parker and Simoncini accused each other of displaying bias toward certain parties with cases pending before the IHRC. (Defs. 56.1 St. ¶ 51.) Parker met with...
To continue reading
Request your trial