Schroeder v. Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20 C 6321 |
| Parties | MALENA SCHROEDER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT # 21, DIANA O'DONNELL, LYNN GLICKMAN and LYNNE DUFFY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Malena Schroeder has sued her former employer, the Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District #21 (the Board), and her individual supervisors for employment discrimination and violations of various federal and state civil rights laws. In an earlier oral ruling, the Court dismissed three of the claims in Schroeder's complaint. The remaining claims allege (1) ethnicity and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), the Illinois Civil Rights Act (ICRA), 740 ILCS § 23/5(a), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (); (2) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) (count three); and (3) disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (counts six and seven). The defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of Schroeder's remaining claims. For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion on the Title VII, ADEA, and section 1981 claims but otherwise grants summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The following facts are undisputed except where otherwise noted. The Board is a local government entity that operates the school district pursuant to Illinois law. Schroeder was employed by the Board as a probationary bilingual kindergarten teacher at Kilmer Elementary School from August 2014 to June 2017. Schroeder is of Hispanic and specifically Cuban descent, and she was fifty-two years old when she began working at the school district. During Schroeder's employment, Diana O'Donnell, Lynn Glickman, and Lynne Duffy supervised and evaluated her. O'Donnell was the principal at Kilmer, Glickman was the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources for the district, and Duffy was the Director of English Language Learning.
Probationary teachers like Schroeder are at-will employees of the Board which decides whether to renew their employment at the end of each academic year. The teacher's supervisors must conduct an annual evaluation and rate the teacher's performance as either "unsatisfactory," "needs improvement," "proficient," or "excellent" in specific domains and for overall performance. If a probationary teacher is employed for four consecutive years and receives an overall rating of "proficient" on both her most recent annual evaluation and her evaluation in her second or third year, she may acquire tenure after her fourth year. A "proficient" rating is no guarantee of tenure or continued employment as a probationary teacher, however, as the Board has the discretion to not renew a probationary teacher so long as it provides sufficient notice.
105 ILCS 5/24-11.
During Schroeder's three years, she received a "proficient" overall rating on all of her annual evaluations. Her final evaluation included a rating value of 2.895 on a five-point scale, and she was rated as "needs improvement" in several domains on each evaluation. Schroeder's supervisors conducted twelve observations or evaluations of her teaching. Observations in September 2014, October 2014, and October 2015 noted performance issues under the "Concerns Deemed Significant" category, which the Board describes as areas requiring immediate improvement. On each of those evaluations, the "Concerns Deemed Significant" mentioned the need for more student interaction and less "teacher talk" or prompting by the teacher. None of Schroeder's observations after October 2015 contained any "Concerns Deemed Significant," but all of her observations and evaluations included feedback under "Target Areas of Growth." Of the four observations conducted after October 2015, two mentioned the need for more student engagement and less prompting by Schroeder under "Target Areas of Growth."
Schroeder's last annual evaluation directed her to continue to "use the school district's curriculum," help students be "self-directed teamers and leaders," and "maintain student engagement throughout the lesson using peer to peer interaction." Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. Of Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. I-6, Final Performance Rating (dkt. no. 36). Her supervisors noted similar concerns in their affidavits submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment: Glickman stated that she "did not demonstrate the growth expected of a probationary teacher," Duffy stated that she "did not demonstrate the growth and ability necessary to warrant attainment of tenure," and O'Donnell stated that "in [Schroeder's] third year, we should have seen more growth." Id., Exs. G (Affidavit of Lynn Glickman) ¶ 27, H (Affidavit of Lynne Duffy) ¶ 40, I (Affidavit of Diana O'Donnell) ¶ 26 (dkt. no. 36). O'Donnell also stated that Id., Ex. I ¶ 26 (dkt. no. 36).
Other probationary teachers at Kilmer were also evaluated by a team of administrators that included O'Donnell. The parties dispute the accuracy of Schroeder's exhibits showing that none of the other Kilmer teachers are Hispanic or Cuban and at most two were under the age of forty, but there is no other evidence on this point. On their 2016-17 evaluations, all the probationary teachers at Kilmer received a "proficient" or "needs improvement" overall rating on their annual evaluations. One probationary teacher, "PT 4," was rated "proficient" with a rating value of 2.895, and she was directed to "form self-directed learners" and "increase student engagement by providing more authentic opportunities." Pl.'s Resp., Ex. 14, Kilmer Prob. Tchr No. 4 (dkt. no. 43-4). Another probationary teacher, "PT 5," was also rated "proficient" with a rating value of 2.835, and she was urged to "continue to learn about student curriculum," provide ways for "students to become more self-directed and independent," and create "more opportunities for discussion in group." Id., Kilmer Prob. Tchr No. 5 (dkt. no. 43-4).
O'Donnell, Glickman, and Duffy met in January 2017 and decided by February 10 not to renew Schroeder. Defendants state that Schroeder was not renewed because "[s]he did not show sufficient growth and her performance needed improvement in numerous areas." Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 11 (dkt. no. 35). Schroeder was the only probationary teacher at Kilmer who was not recommended for renewal that year.
On February 15, 2017, Schroeder informed O'Donnell that she needed to take two days off for double foot surgery. The parties dispute whether Schroeder had previously registered her days off in the district's attendance tracking system in January 2017, whether O'Donnell and Glickman knew of Schroeder's foot surgery prior to February 15, and whether O'Donnell responded by reminding Schroeder that she would be considered for tenure the next school year. On February 17, Schroeder had her foot surgery and was absent for two days.
On February 23, 2017, O'Donnell and Duffy met with Schroeder to discuss her 2016-17 annual evaluation. They informed her that she would not be renewed for the next school year. Approximately one month later, Schroeder received a letter from the Board confirming her non-renewal.
In April 2017, Schroeder requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a second foot surgery. She took FMLA leave for most of the month of May. Schroeder's last day of employment was June 2, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, Schroeder obtained counsel and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) alleging ethnicity, national origin, and age discrimination. On March 9, 2018, Schroeder filed a second charge with the EEOC and IDHR alleging disability discrimination. In August 2020, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter regarding her ethnicity, national origin, and age discrimination charge. Schroeder filed this lawsuit in October 2020, within ninety days of receiving her right-to-sue letter. As indicated earlier, Schroeder asserts claims against the Board based on violations of Title VII (count I), the ICRA (count 2), the ADEA (count 3), section 1981 (count 4), section 1983 (count 5), the ADA (count 6), and the Rehabilitation Act (count 7). She has also named O'Donnell, Glickman, and Duffy as defendants, presumably on the section 1983 claim, though the complaint does not make that particularly clear.[1]
To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the Board must show that "there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Hanover Ins. Co. v. N. Bldg. Co., 751 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). When deciding a summary judgment motion, courts must "construe all inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made." Cremation Soc'y of Ill Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 727, 869 F.3d 610, 616 (7th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Although "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties" is insufficient to preclude summary judgment, courts should apply the standard with special scrutiny to...
To continue reading
Request your trial