Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.

• Decision Date: 08 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-3152,19-3152
• Citation: 982 F.3d 495
• Parties: Dan WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

982 F.3d 495

Dan WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-3152

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued September 25, 2020

Decided December 8, 2020

Rehearing Denied January 7, 2021

Deidre Baumann, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Arthur Doyle, Attorney, Chicago Board of Education, Law Department, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Ripple, Brennan, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Ripple, Circuit Judge.

Dan Williams brought this action against his employer, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago ("Board"), under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), see 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. He alleged that the Board had discriminated against him because of his disability and gender, otherwise failed to accommodate his disability, and unlawfully retaliated against him for filing claims under Title VII and the ADA. After discovery, the Board moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted the motion,¹ and Mr. Williams timely appealed.² We affirm the judgment of the district court.

IBACKGROUND

A.

Mr. Williams's contentions derive from a rather complicated series of interactions between him and the Board. We therefore begin by setting forth, in approximate chronological order, the essential facts underlying his contentions.

Mr. Williams has worked as a school social worker in the Chicago Public Schools ("CPS") since 2008. He suffers from depression, anxiety, and chronic sinusitis

. These conditions make it difficult for him to sleep at night, and, consequently, make it difficult for him to concentrate and recall information.

Teachers and social workers in the CPS are evaluated according to the "REACH" tool. REACH evaluation scores range from 100–400: a score of 340–400 translates to an "excellent" rating, a score of 285–339 translates to a "proficient" rating, a score of 210–284 translates to a "developing" rating, and a score of 100–209 translates to an "unsatisfactory" rating. For the 2013–14 school year, Mr. Williams received a REACH score of 268, which placed him in the "developing" category. Because of this rating, Mr. Williams and the Board developed and signed a Professional Development Plan in December 2014.

CPS selects certain social workers to be Social Work Leads. These individuals support other social workers by assisting with scheduling and covering a caseload when a social worker is absent. This designation does not constitute a promotion, nor does it involve a salary increase. CPS only considers social workers who have attained a "proficient" rating for these duties. In September 2014, Mr. Williams applied to be, but was not selected as, a Social Work Lead.

Most social workers in the CPS are assigned simultaneously to two or three schools. Because CPS schools have different start times, social workers also start their days at different times, depending on which school they are serving on a given day. In October 2014, Mr. Williams made his first accommodation request: he asked the Board to allow him a consistent start time, 7:45 a.m., and a consistent end time, 2:45 p.m., to his workday. The Board denied his request on the ground that there was insufficient medical information to support his request. Nevertheless, it offered to arrange for Mr. Williams to arrive at one of his assigned schools at 7:45 a.m., even though it had an 8:45 a.m. start time.

Throughout the 2014–15 school year, Mr. Williams had performance problems. By the end of the year, Mr. Williams was placed on a Performance Improvement Process, which cited numerous deficiencies, including: interrupting a teacher while she was teaching, failing to read a student's individual educational plan before meeting with that student, speaking inappropriately about his personal life and making numerous personal calls during school hours, and failing to report to work (as well as failing to swipe in and out and failing to work assigned hours). The plan also noted that parents, students, and teachers at Mr. Williams's assigned schools had complained about his conduct and work. Mr. Williams refused to acknowledge receipt of, or to sign, the plan.

CPS selects some social workers to be Social Work Field Instructors to work with CPS social work interns. Like Social Work Leads, selection for these positions does not constitute a promotion or a salary increase. Furthermore, only "proficient" social workers may become Social Work Field Instructors. In April 2015, Mr. Williams applied to be, but was not selected as, a Social Work Field Instructor.

On April 23, 2015, Mr. Williams filed the first of two discrimination charges. His specific complaints centered on the events of the past year that we have just recounted. He alleged that the Board had failed to award him a Social Work Lead position because of his gender, because of his disability, and in retaliation for his request for accommodation. He further alleged that the Board had failed to accommodate him by denying his request for a uniform start time in October 2014. He also asserted that his placement on a Professional Development Plan constituted harassment on the basis of his disability and his gender and in retaliation for his request for accommodation. Finally, he alleged that the Board's failure to select him to be a Social Work Field Instructor was on account of his disability and gender and in retaliation for his request for accommodation.

One month later, just prior to the end of the 2014–15 school year, Mr. Williams submitted a second accommodation request. He asked for a consistent start time of 7:45 a.m., a reduced caseload of no more than twenty students (later adjusted to the minimum caseload of students), an assignment to a single school, and the removal of Prescott Elementary School from his responsibilities. The Board denied these requests. With respect to the start time of 7:45 a.m., the Board stated that there were no openings at schools with 7:45 a.m. start times, but that it would attempt to place Mr. Williams at a school with a 7:45 a.m. start time for the following school year. It denied Mr. Williams a reduced case load because a review of his caseload revealed no justification for such a reduction. Regarding Mr. Williams's requests to be assigned only one school and not to have to work at Prescott Elementary, the Board denied these requests because each would have resulted in a de facto part-time position. However, for the coming 2015–16 school year, the Board did remove Prescott Elementary School from Mr. Williams's responsibility, and it assigned him to two schools, Lawndale and Leland Elementary Schools, both with 7:45 a.m. start times.

As the new school year began in September 2015, Mr. Williams submitted a third request for accommodation. He asked that each of his assigned schools provide him with a private office and dedicated equipment, specifically: a telephone, a high-capacity laser printer with extra ink, a private fax machine, a large high-resolution monitor, a high-capacity shredder, a high-capacity scanner, a proper desk and swivel chair, and large HEPA filters. He also requested that the Board exempt him from REACH evaluations and that he be granted a life-long waiver of its residency rule. The Board supplied Mr. Williams with HEPA filters, computer monitors, and access to a private space to meet with students; it denied his other requests.

On Saturdays and during the summer, CPS conducts special education assessments to create plans for students. Two to three assessments are done each day. Most students evaluated are between two-and-a-half and five years old, are bilingual, or attend a private school in Chicago. Each assessment team has a social worker, and CPS gives priority to social workers who are bilingual, have experience with early childhood students, can work at a fast pace, and have attained a rating of "proficient" in their REACH scores. In June 2015, Mr. Williams applied to be on a summer special assessment team, but he was not selected because, among other reasons, he did not have a rating of "proficient" and was not bilingual. In December 2015, he applied for a position with the Saturday assessment team but was not selected.

On December 18, 2015, Mr. Williams filed his second charge of discrimination. He claimed that he had not been selected for the summer assessment team in 2015 because of his disability and in retaliation for requests for accommodation and his previous charge of discrimination. He complained of the Board's failure to grant him the accommodations that he had requested in May and September 2015. He also alleged discrimination and retaliation in the form of a return-to-work restriction and an increased caseload because of his disability and in retaliation for internal requests for accommodation and his external charge of discrimination. Finally, he alleged that the Board's failure to hire him for the Saturday assessment team was both discriminatory and retaliatory.

B.

After receiving a right-to-sue letter on both charges, Mr. Williams instituted this action on December 19, 2016. Mr. Williams's Third Amended (and operative) Complaint, filed in May 2018, set forth many of the events recounted above, as well as allegations involving events that occurred in 2017 and 2018. In Count I, Mr. Williams alleged that the Board had discriminated against him on the basis of his gender in violation of Title VII in failing to hire him as a Social Work Lead and in subjecting him to "numerous work place [sic] restrictions and individual assignments intended to scrutinize his job performance from September to December 2014."³ In Count II, he alleged discrimination on the basis of his disability. The factual bases for this claim were that his informal and formal requests for accommodation had "been either ignored, denied, or addressed with unreasonable, temporary...