Williams v. City of Chi.
| Decision Date | 26 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-8271 |
| Parties | ORALEAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO and RICHARD ADAMS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Oralean Williams brings claims against Defendants the City of Chicago and Richard Adams for racial and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983. Before the Court are the City's motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and IV [12] and Adams's motion to dismiss Count V [19]. For the reasons set forth below, the City's motion to dismiss [12] is granted in part and denied in part, and Adams's motion to dismiss [19] is granted in part and denied in part. The City's request to extend the time in which the City has to answer Count III is granted. Plaintiff is given until August 25, 2017 to file an amended complaint consistent with this opinion, if Plaintiff believes that she can overcome the deficiencies identified below. This case is set for further status hearing on August 31, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's complaint [1] and the attached exhibits. Plaintiff, an African American female, began working for the City as a Motor Truck Driver in the Department of Streets and Sanitation in approximately 2000. For much of her employment, Plaintiff drove a sanitation truck. From approximately 2008 to July 2015, Plaintiff was stationed at the yard located at 52nd Street and Oakley Avenue ("the yard"). [1, at ¶ 12.] In approximately May of 2014, Plaintiff was elevated to the position of "E-Person," which Plaintiff alleges was a "prestigious office and administrative position in the yard." Plaintiff alleges that at that time, she came under the "direct, daily supervision" of Defendant Adams. [Id., at ¶ 13.] Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that at all relevant times, Adams possessed and was delegated final policymaking authority for personnel issues arising within the Department of Streets and Sanitation at the yard. [Id., at ¶ 14.]
Plaintiff contends that during the course of her employment with the City, she performed all of her duties and responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Plaintiff alleges that beginning almost immediately after her appointment to the E-Person position, and continuing through July 2015 when she was finally transferred to another position, she was "a victim of a pattern and practice of race and gender discrimination and harassment, disparate treatment as to the terms and conditions of employment based upon race and gender, and retaliation for complaining about discrimination and harassment." [Id., at ¶ 16.]
Specifically, Plaintiff makes the following allegations regarding harassment based on her gender: Plaintiff alleges that Adams subjected her to different and demeaning terms and conditions of employment "than her similarly situated male counterparts," including prohibiting her from entering the "shop" at the yard to check on the sanitation trucks despite the fact that her job required her to do so, prohibiting Plaintiff from using her cell phone during work while allowing "all other similarly situated males" to do so, refusing to provide or arrange for appropriate E-Person job training, and forcing Plaintiff to log incoming trucks while standing outdoors, instead of in the office window, even in the harshest of weather conditions. [Id., at ¶ 17(a).] Plaintiff further alleges that Adams repeatedly "comment[ed] derogatorily to Plaintiffabout the fact that she was a woman and as such, should not have the E-Person position and stating that 'women should be at home.'" [Id., at ¶ 17(b).] According to Plaintiff, Adams repeatedly screamed and "adopt[ed] a demeaning tone toward Plaintiff" and repeatedly used the exclamation "Women!" when walking away from Plaintiff following discussions. [Id., at ¶¶ 17(c)-(d).] Adams allegedly made derogatory comments to Plaintiff such as, "You women are worthless" and stated that Plaintiff was "nothing a bullet won't cure." [Id., at ¶¶ 17(e)-(f).] Adams allegedly implied that Plaintiff would never be good at her job unless she learned to lie on the ground and twist wires, while never indicating that any similarly situated male E-Person was required to do so. Plaintiff contends that these were not isolated incidents and that Adams engaged in this type of behavior "continually and on a daily basis, commonly in the presence of multiple Streets and Sanitation employees." [Id., at ¶¶ 17-18.]
Plaintiff further alleges that Adams, whom Plaintiff describes as "not African-American," engaged in racially discriminatory and harassing behavior in the workplace on a daily basis. [Id., at ¶ 20.] Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Adams repeatedly made reference to African American employees as "you black people" in a derogatory manner, repeatedly used the term "nigga," and permitted employees to use the word "nigger" if they put five dollars into the office "swear jar." [See id., at ¶¶ 20(a), (b), (e) (f).] Plaintiff further contends that Adams ordered Plaintiff to "get a mop and start mopping" because "black people are good for mopping." [Id., at ¶ 20(c).] Adams allegedly told Plaintiff that she knew how to "handle [her] people," which Plaintiff interpreted to mean black employees, and allegedly stated that black people should not have the E-Person position, referring to Plaintiff and another African American E-Person. [Id., at ¶¶ 20(d), 20(g).] Plaintiff alleges that Adams told Plaintiff that black women are worthless and allowed "at least one" co-worker to refer to Plaintiff as the "Black E-Woman" withoutrepercussion. [Id., at ¶¶ 20(j), (k).] Plaintiff also alleges that Adams stated out loud in Plaintiff's presence that he did not want his daughter to date a black man. [Id., at ¶¶ 20(i), (j).] Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Adams subjected her to different and demeaning terms and conditions of employment "than her similarly situated non-African-American counterparts," including prohibiting her from entering the "shop" at the yard to check on the sanitation trucks despite the fact that her job required her to do so, prohibiting Plaintiff from using her cell phone during work while allowing "all other similarly situated non-African American employees" to do so, refusing to provide or arrange for appropriate E-Person job training, and forcing Plaintiff to log incoming trucks while standing outdoors, instead of in the office window, even in the harshest of weather conditions. [Id., at ¶ 20(h).] Plaintiff alleges that these actions by Adams created a racially hostile work environment.
Plaintiff contends that she complained about Adams's conduct to "an individual supervisor at the downtown Chicago office of the Department of Street and Sanitation" on several occasions during the early half of 2015. [Id., at ¶ 23.] Plaintiff refers to this individual as "Jay" and alleges upon information and belief that his last name is Keag. [Id., at ¶ 23 n.1.] Plaintiff asserts that Jay said he would talk to Adams but that Plaintiff noticed no difference in Adams's behavior and that no effective disciplinary action was taken. [Id., at ¶ 23.] Plaintiff alleges that she further reported Adams's behavior to "several other supervisors on site," as well as the 16th Ward Superintendent, Nate Wilson. [Id., at ¶ 24.] Additionally, Plaintiff allegedly prepared a written complaint and provided it to disciplinary officer Katrika Scott. [Id.] However, Plaintiff contends that no immediate or effective action was taken. Plaintiff alleges that she was told to report the misconduct to Janet Gay, Administrative Supervisor in thedowntown office of the Department of Streets and Sanitation, and that she eventually did so. [Id.]
According to Plaintiff, after her reports of discrimination, Defendants began a course of retaliation against Plaintiff that adversely affected the terms and conditions of her employment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Adams responded to her complaints by falsely disciplining Plaintiff for "disrupting his yard." [Id., at ¶ 25.] Plaintiff contends that she was later called into a meeting downtown with Streets and Sanitation supervisory personnel including Gay, Deputy Director Josie Cruz, and another person that Plaintiff refers to as "Ray." Plaintiff alleges that she was relieved of her duties as an E-Person and reassigned to another yard, where she was sent back to the motor pool to drive a sanitation truck instead of having an administrative position. [Id., at ¶ 26.] Plaintiff asserts that she was not given the option of staying at her "more desirable and prestigious position of E-Person" and instead Adams reassigned her to another yard. [Id.]
Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, Gay, Cruz, Jay, and Ray were agents, servants, or employees of the City, and she alleges upon information and belief that each possessed and was delegated final policymaking authority for personnel issues arising within the Department of Streets and Sanitation. [Id., at ¶ 27.] Plaintiff alleges that Gay, Cruz, Jay, Ray, and Adams never adequately responded to her complaints "and thereby approved, condoned, and/or turned a blind eye to the discrimination and harassment" by Adams. [Id., at ¶ 28.]
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination based on race and gender with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and received a right to sue letter from the EEOC. [Id., at ¶ 9.] Plaintiff then brought this lawsuit on August 23, 2016. [1.] Count I alleges race discrimination and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII; Count II alleges gender discrimination and a hostile workenvironment in violation of Title VII; Count III alleges retaliation in violation of Title VII; Count IV alleges a Monell claim against the City pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983;...
To continue reading
Request your trial