Taylor v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-cv-7855 |
| Parties | TIA T. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In her governing second amended complaint [119], Plaintiff Tia T. Taylor ("Plaintiff") asserts claims against her former employer the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago ("Defendant" or "District") for Title VII discrimination and hostile work environment based on gender, Title VII retaliation, and FMLA interference and retaliation. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment [129], to which Plaintiff has responded pro se due to the failure of her retained attorney to respond to any of Plaintiff's communications or orders of the Court. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment [129] is granted in part and denied in part. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's FMLA claims to the extent that Plaintiff requests punitive damages as relief for those claims and on Plaintiff's FMLA interference claim to the extent that it is based on Defendant's alleged denial of leave to Plaintiff in 2015. Defendant's motion is otherwise denied. This case is set for status hearing on May 7, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
The following facts are taken primarily from Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 statement [130], which is properly supported by citation to the record in accordance with Local Rule 56.1. Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 statement, as required by the Local Rules. In particular, Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) requires a party opposing summary judgment to file a response to the movant's 56.1 statement with numbered paragraphs responding to "each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon," as well as "a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment, including references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon."
In the ordinary case, even a pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with the Local Rules could result in the Court deeming all of the defendant's factual statements admitted. See Wilson v. Kautex, Inc., 371 Fed. Appx. 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2010) (). The Court declines to do so here, however, because Plaintiff is in the position of having to respond pro se due to the unexplained disappearance of her retained attorney. Further, since Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time Defendant moved for summary judgment, she (through no fault of Defendant) did not receive the "Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment" required by Local Rule 56.2, which explains how to respond to a Local Rule 56.1 statement.
The Court has therefore carefully reviewed and considered the factual statements made by Plaintiff in her deposition, see [130-12], and her two responses to summary judgment, [149], [150],as well as the documents that Plaintiff has filed as an "Appendix," [151]. The Court finds it unnecessary to include all of Plaintiff's allegations and documents in the background section of the opinion, however, given the unwieldy nature of Plaintiff's submissions and the limited number of factual issues on which the disposition of the current motion rests. Instead, in this section of the opinion the Court notes only those disputes that, in its view, are material at the summary judgment stage.
Defendant is a unit of local government, governed by the provisions of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act ("Act"), responsible for sewage treatment and storm water management for an area covering most of Cook County. See 70 ILCS 2605/1 et seq. Defendant maintains Anti-Harassment, Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Policies and Reporting Procedures ("Administrative Procedure 10.5.0"). The aim of Administrative Procedure 10.5.0 is to provide all employees with a workplace that is free from harassment and discrimination based on things such as an individual's race, sex, gender, color, racial group or perceived racial group, disability, age, religion, national origin or ethnicity, and sexual orientation. This policy intends to provide all employees with a workplace that is free from retaliation for making, or attempting to make, a report, complaint or allegation of harassment or discrimination. The policy intends to eliminate attempts to prevent an employee from participating in these protected activities.
Administrative Procedure 10.5.0 also sets forth a process for progressive disciplinary action. [130] at 10-11.
Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant on July 29, 2009 as a Maintenance Laborer B ("MLB"). MLB job duties include landscaping maintenance, pavement sweeping, floor care, window washing, snow shoveling, refuse pick up, other typical janitorial duties, and other duties as assigned.
On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff complained to Defendant that her supervisor, Hollee Davis ("Davis"), harassed her by denying her gas mileage reimbursement, making negative comments about her personal appearance, giving her looks of disgust, and treating her differently than males as far as work assignments. On November 5, 2013, Defendant's Human Resources ("HR") Department conducted an investigation into Plaintiff's claim. HR's investigation consisted of interviews with Davis, Davis' supervisor George Kedl, and Plaintiff, as well as an examination of the MLB work log assignments. As a result of the investigation, in order to correct an unequal distribution of work, the workloads of both Plaintiff and a male co-worker, Franklin Enyard ("Enyard"), were reduced. HR did not find that Davis discriminated against Plaintiff or harassed Plaintiff. HR concluded that there was no evidence to show that Davis' actions violated Administrative Procedure 10.5.0.
In 2014, Plaintiff was allegedly harassed on two occasions by her co-worker Enyard. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that the first incident, which occurred on April 28, 2014, began when she went to the digester building to ask Enyard for the key to a cart that she wanted to use to complete her work. Plaintiff testified that Enyard "just started going crazy" and "cornered [her] off and was walking up in [her] face and pumping [her] with his chest." [130-12] at 16, Tr. p. 54.Plaintiff stated that Enyard was "enraged," "foaming at the mouth," with "[s]pit ... flying out of his mouth." Id. Enyard allegedly told Plaintiff: Id. Plaintiff testified that once Enyard cornered her, she "started to fear that he was really going to do something." Id. at 17. According to Plaintiff, this was not the first time she had seen Enyard "going into these rages," but was "shocked that it was towards me." Id. at 16.
Plaintiff filed a complaint with HR concerning the incident. HR began its investigation of the incident the next day. Plaintiff was interviewed by an HR investigator.
While Plaintiff's allegations were under review, Defendant promoted Plaintiff to the position of Maintenance Laborer A ("MLA") at the Egan Plant effective May 5, 2014. However, due to an error discovered on May 7, 2014, Defendant determined that it had used an incorrect seniority date to determine Plaintiff's eligibility for promotion to MLA. As a result of correcting her seniority date, Plaintiff was not eligible for appointment under the terms of the governing collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 1, Fireman and Oilers Division. To correct this error of promoting Plaintiff from MLB to MLA too early due to seniority and to comply with the collective bargaining agreement, Plaintiff's appointment was rescinded by the Executive Director on May 7, 2014. Defendant instructed Plaintiff to report to her original MLB classification at the Calumet Plant on Friday, May 9, 2014.
On May 22, 2014, HR issued its report concerning the April 28 incident. According to the report, Plaintiff made the following statements during her interview regarding what happened on the morning of April 28, 2014: Plaintiff noticed a cart parked outside the digester building, entered the building and knocked on the door of the men's room. When Enyard came out; she told Enyardthat she wanted to use the cart when he was through, to which he replied, Plaintiff admitted that she replied in the same way, at which point Enyard said Plaintiff stated that although she initially reacted to Enyard's outburst by arguing with him, she realized he was so upset that she decided to cease her side of...
To continue reading
Request your trial