Smith v. Northeastern Illinois University

• Decision Date: 04 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-1196.,03-1196.
• Citation: 388 F.3d 559
• Parties: Randy SMITH, Victoria Guerrero, Ann Weaver, and Elbert Lee Reeves, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY and Gerald Leenheer, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

388 F.3d 559

Randy SMITH, Victoria Guerrero, Ann Weaver, and Elbert Lee Reeves, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY and Gerald Leenheer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1196.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued January 23, 2004.

Decided November 4, 2004.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Joan B. Gottschall, J.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Armand L. Andry(argued), Oak Park, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Erik G. Light(argued), Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BAUER, WOOD, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

PlaintiffsRandy Smith, Victoria Guerrero, Ann Weaver and Elbert Lee Reeves filed suit against defendants Northeastern Illinois University ("Northeastern"), Gerald Leenheer, and Kevin Connolly.Smith, Reeves and Weaver, all African American, alleged that the defendants(Connolly and Leenheer are white) discriminated against them on account of their race by creating and tolerating a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981andTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.In addition, they, along with Guerrero, who is Latina, allege suffering racially motivated retaliation in violation of § 1981andTitle VII.All four plaintiffs also claim that the defendants violated their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment by depriving them of their ability to complain about their unfair treatment at defendants' hands and by subjecting them to a hostile work environment or harassment when they exercised their First Amendment rights.

On summary judgment, the district court dismissed all claims against defendant Connolly and all claims made by Weaver and Guerrero.Smith and Reeves' claims against the remaining defendants, Northeastern and Leenheer, proceeded to trial, at the conclusion of which a jury found for the defendants.Smith and Reeves then moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, which the district court denied.

Weaver and Guerrero appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment on their hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII.Smith and Reeves seek this court's review of the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.On appeal, plaintiffs do not pursue any claims against Connolly, so we treat him as no longer a party to this case.For the reasons given below, we affirm.

I.Background

Unless otherwise indicated, the facts discussed are those that were before the district court on summary judgment.We view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.Tutman v. WBBM-TV, Inc./CBS, Inc.,209 F.3d 1044, 1048(7th Cir.2000);Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).

Northeastern is a state university located in Chicago, Illinois and its Public Safety Department(the "Department") employs police officers and clerical staff.Plaintiffs Smith and Reeves and defendants Connolly and Leenheer were employed by the Department as police officers.¹Plaintiff Weaver worked as an administrative aide and officer manager for the Department.Her duties included hiring all clerical staff and supervising three full-time clerks, including plaintiff Guerrero, a "day supervisor," as well as several student workers.William Curtin served as director of the department and Weaver's immediate supervisor.²

While plaintiffs present the facts on which they base their appealed claims in a rather muddled fashion,³ what is clear is that the work environment at Northeastern's Public Safety Department was far from ideal.We first provide a general description of the work environment, highlighting key events, focusing on racist and other offensive comments, possible retaliatory or other questionable conduct, and employee factions.

A.Incidences of Racist and Other Offensive Comments

The first instance of offensive commentary plaintiffs point to allegedly occurred in 1984.Gene Salecker, a white officer employed at the Department and not a party to this litigation, had a conversation with defendant Leenheer in which Leenheer referred to the father of a student protest leader as a "nigger."A few years later, in 1987, when Salecker was the only white officer assigned to the midnight shift, Leenheer telephoned Salecker at home and suggested that he transfer to the afternoon shift so that "all blacks would be on the midnight shift, all the `donkeys' would be stuck on the midnight shift and they can fuck each other around."Leenheer apparently used the term donkeys to refer to blacks on a number of occasions during this time period.

Plaintiff Smith testified at his trial that in early 1992, while eating lunch in the break room, he overheard Leenheer ask if anyone in the break room had seen him.Leenheer was apparently unaware of Smith's presence.When no person responded affirmatively, Smith overhead Leenheer retort "I don't like working with the nigger anyway."Later in 1992, Leenheer arrested a black student named Victor Sellers.An officer informed Leenheer that Smith felt Sellers's arrest was racially-motivated.Salecker gave a statement to the Chief of Police that was supportive of Smith's perspective and conflicted with that of Leenheer and another officer, Robert Paprocki.Later, Paprocki called Salecker a "nigger-lover."

In 1993, Northeastern's Affirmative Action officer Margo Smith conducted an internal investigation filed by Smith against Leenheer, Director Curtin and others.In this investigation, she learned that Leenheer stated, "I am going to get these motherfuckers fired."This statement referred to plaintiffs Smith and Reeves.

In 1997, there were a number of incidents in which Leenheer was overheard using racial epithets.In the spring of that year, Mindy Tran, a student aide working at the Department, overheard Leenheer telling another officer, Hopeton Rowe, "I am going to get two motherfucking black niggers fired."Later that summer, with Leenheer standing near her desk, Tran and another student, Yamileth Valdes, heard Leenheer say, "Oh, those motherfucking niggers."Tran and Valdes complained to Guerrero about Leenheer's use of racial epithets.Plaintiff Weaver also once heard Leenheer call Smith and Reeves "black motherfuckers."Weaver's staff reported to her that Leenheer and Connolly were "constantly talking about Officer Reeves and Officer Smith and calling them derogatory names such as `black niggers' and talking about them losing their jobs" which caused the students to be "scared."Delia Prondzinski, a full-time clerk working under Weaver's supervision, also heard Leenheer refer to African-Americans as "black motherfuckers" sometime in 1997.

B.Possible Retaliatory or Otherwise Questionable Conduct

Plaintiffs' statement of facts describes numerous instances of complaints, and reactions by defendants to those complaints.As a result of Plaintiff Smith's criticism of the black student's arrest in 1992, Public Safety Department Director Curtin requested that the director of personnel discipline Smith on several grounds, including insubordination.Smith was suspended thirty days for which he submitted a grievance.Although Leenheer told Guerrero that "it would be best if [she] didn't have to go" testify at the grievance hearing, she did testify.The grievance committee upheld the grievance on seven of the eight counts, denied it as to the insubordination charge, and reduced Smith's suspension to one day, finding thirty days to be unduly harsh.

In April 1993, Plaintiff Smith filed an internal complaint against various individuals, including Leenheer and Director Curtin.A month later, Plaintiff Reeves prepared an internal memorandum to what he titled the "Department of Labor," where he expressed concern about discriminatory practices in overtime, selection of the acting watch commander, and the general atmosphere at the Public Safety Department.Reeves also affirmed that Salecker told him that when he worked on Leenheer's watch, Salecker would hear Leenheer's "cronies" telling racist jokes.

In March 1995, Smith filed a discrimination complaint with the Illinois Human Rights Commission.He claimed that he was given a warning for parking in a restricted parking space even though a white co-worker allegedly did the same and was not disciplined.Smith also contended that he was harassed and falsely accused of withholding information in connection with his inability to catch African-American individuals who had allegedly taken a stuffed animal from the school store.Smith stated that white officers were not harassed or suspended for wrongdoing under similar circumstances.

In March 1997, Smith and Reeves collectively filed discrimination charges with the Illinois Department of Human Rights.They alleged that Director Curtin demoted them from acting watch commander to police officer because of their race.The official reason given for Smith and Reeves's demotion was that they had left their patrol areas without authorization.However, Smith and Reeves alleged that non-black officers had done the same several times and had not faced discipline.

Also in March 1997, Weaver, Guerrero and Prondzinski complained to Director Curtin about Leenheer's treatment of non-white personnel.At the end of that month, Leenheer offered Prondzinski a ride home.During the ride, Leenheer told Prondzinski that he knew that someone had filed a complaint against him.He asked her if she knew anything about it and mentioned that he"was going to do something about it."Feeling "highly upset" and "slightly intimidated," Prondzinski responded in the negative.After he dropped her off at a grocery store, Prondzinski telephoned Weaver crying and very upset about the incident.

The next day, Weaver wrote a memorandum to Director Curtin explaining the situation.In this...