Williams v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

• Decision Date: 14 March 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 12-cv-8400
• Parties: MICHELLE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ROBERT A. McDONALD, in his official capacity as Secretary of Veterans Affairs only, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

MICHELLE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ROBERT A. McDONALD,in his official capacity as Secretary of Veterans Affairs only,¹ Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-8400

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

March 14, 2016

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Michelle Williams, in her suit against the Department of Veterans Affairs, through its Secretary Robert A. McDonald in his official capacity only ("Defendant"), claims that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation on the basis of age, gender, and race while employed as a Program Support Supervisor at Jesse Brown VA Medical Center ("Jesse Brown"). Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment [47]. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion [47] is granted.

I. Background

A. The Parties' Statements of Facts

The Court takes the relevant facts primarily from the parties' Local Rule ("L.R.") 56.1 statements: (1) Defendant's L.R. 56.1 Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [49]; and (2) Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts In Support of Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [57].Local Rule 56.1 requires a party moving for summary judgment to submit a statement of material facts as to which the movant contends there is no genuine issue and entitles the movant to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant has complied with this rule [49]. The rule also requires the nonmovant (here, Plaintiff) to file (1) a concise response to a movant's statement of facts containing "any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials"; and (2) a statement (if any) of additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(A). Plaintiff has not complied with these requirements. Although the paragraph numbering in Plaintiff's L.R. 56.1 Statement largely follows the paragraph numbering used in Defendant's L.R. 56.1 Statement, Plaintiff does not specifically admit or deny the facts set forth by the Defendant. Instead, where she is in agreement with Defendant's version of the facts, Plaintiff repeats or paraphrases Defendant's LR 56.1 statement. Where she disagrees with Defendant's version of the facts, Plaintiff either ignores those facts or provides different and/or additional facts. It is improper for a party to add new facts in this manner in its response to a party's L.R. 56.1 statement of fact; new facts should be set out in a separate statement of additional facts, to which the Defendant would have an opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643 (7th Cir. 2008).

Nonetheless, because Plaintiff appears to have tried to comply with L.R. 56.1, the Court will exercise its discretion in the direction of leniency and consider those responses and additional fact statements that arguably meet the requirements of the local and federal rules. Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1169 (7th Cir. 2013) (making clear that, although district courts have discretion to require strict compliance with Rule 56.1, "[i]t does not follow * * * that district courts cannot exercise their discretion in a more lenient direction: litigants have no right to demand strict enforcement of local rules by district judges").

With that said, it is the Court's duty to review carefully statements of material facts and to eliminate from consideration any argument, conclusions, and assertions that are unsupported by the documented evidence of record offered in support of the statement. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Henry Smid Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 2006 WL 980740, *2 n.2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2006); Tibbetts v. RadioShack Corp., 2004 WL 2203418, at *16 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2004). Merely including facts in a responsive memorandum is insufficient to put issues before the Court. Midwest Imports, Ltd. v. Coval, 71 F.3d 1311, 1313 (7th Cir. 1995); Malec, 191 F.R.D. 581, 594 (N.D. Ill. 2000). The Court's scrutiny of material statements of facts applies equally to the party seeking summary judgment and the party opposing it.

In addition, Local Rule 56.1 requires factual allegations in the statements of fact to be supported by admissible record evidence. See L.R. 56.1; Malec, 191 F.R.D. at 583-85. Where a party has offered a legal conclusion or a statement of fact without offering proper evidentiary support, the Court will not consider that statement. Id. Additionally, where a party improperly denies a statement of fact by failing to provide adequate or proper record support for the denial, the Court deems that statement of fact to be admitted. See L.R. 56.1(a), 56.1(b)(3)(B); see also Malec, 191 F.R.D. at 584. The requirements for a response under Local Rule 56.1 are "not satisfied by evasive denials that do not fairly meet the substance of the material facts asserted." Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2000). Thus, any statements or responses that contain legal conclusions or argument, are evasive, contain hearsay or are not based on personal knowledge, are irrelevant, or are not supported by citation to evidence in the record will not be considered by the Court in ruling on the summary judgment motions. In the following discussion of the facts, the Court notes several instances in whichlegal conclusions have been advanced and statements of fact were not properly supported by the record.

B. Facts

Plaintiff is an African American woman over the age of forty. Plaintiff began working at Jesse Brown in 1982 as a typist. She held various clerical positions until 2004, when she became a Program Support Supervisor with the mental health service line, the unit that provides mental health services to VA patients at Jesse Brown. Plaintiff was responsible for supervising a staff of approximately 13 to 17 clerks, monitoring appointment cancellations and rescheduling, attending meetings and preparing reports on patient activity, coordinating staff caseloads, and performing related administrative tasks. The pay grade for Program Support Supervisor at that time was GS-7 on the General Service Administration pay scale for federal employees.

Plaintiff asserts in her response brief ([54] at 5) and L.R. 56.1 Statement ([57] at 3) that in 2004 she was promised a pay grade increase by her supervising administrative officer, Devora Garrett. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that "Devora Garrett rewrote the job description" for Program Support Supervisor, "which included additional duties"; that Garrett "discussed" the "new job description" with Plaintiff; and that Garrett "presented [the job description] to Paul Johnson and Dr. Nand for signatures to upgrade the Position to GS-9 on the general service administration pay scale for federal employees." [57] at 3. Plaintiff does not cite to any deposition testimony or affidavits to support these facts, but does submit a document titled "Position Description" for "Supervisor, MJSL Administrative Support Unit," dated June 24, 2004 and signed by Garrett and "Paul Johnson, Business Manager" that shows the position classified at the GS-9 pay grade.

Jesse Brown's Human Resources ("HR") department is required to review and approve requests for an increase in pay grade. Garrett left her position as administrative officer before she sent HR the documentation necessary to process the request for a pay grade increase. In February 2005, Rick Kallao became the administrative officer for Jesse Brown and Plaintiff's first-line supervisor. Plaintiff and Kallao had a good working relationship until late 2008 or early 2009. During this period, Kallao gave Plaintiff annual reviews. The performance reviews that Plaintiff has provided to the Court ([54-1] at 7-14) show that for the period covering October 2005 to September 2006, Plaintiff was rated "Outstanding," which is the highest rating available. For the period covering October 2007 to September 2008, he rated her performance "Excellent," which is the second-to-highest rating available.

According to Plaintiff's response brief—which cites but does not attach Plaintiff's deposition transcript—Plaintiff "was approached by a co-worker with a copy of the documentation for the promotion that she was promised on June 18, 2004." [57] at 4.² "[P]laintiff approached Rick Kallao and asked him why he failed to forward the documentation to Human Relations. He stated that he lost it. [Plaintiff] then gave him a copy and asked him to submit it. Weeks passed and the documentation was not submitted. [Plaintiff] approached * * * Kallao on several occasions and he failed to submit the documentation. [Plaintiff] then went to Dr. Fore[,] Kallao's superior[,] for assistance." Id. "Kallao wrote a job description and submitted it to Dr. Fore and to Human Resources." Id. (citing Fore declaration, [49-1] at 28). Dr. Fore and Kallao began working with HR to determine whether the position could be re-graded to a higher pay scale. [49-1] at 28.

According to Plaintiff's L.R. 56.1 Statement, after Plaintiff talked to Dr. Fore, Kallao "proceeded to threaten [Plaintiff] by stating you are going to regret going to Dr. Fore. * * * Kallao then began to harass [Plaintiff] by interfering with her supervisory duties and over ruling any decisions that she made in front of the clerks that she supervised." [57] at 5. Plaintiff's Statement does not cite to anything in the record to support this statement, but Plaintiff does submit an affidavit and a declaration from her co-workers concerning Kallao's alleged harassment. Patricia Gardner, a clerk supervised by Plaintiff, stated in her affidavit that she "witnessed verbal and mental abuse on many occasions to Michelle Williams by Rick Kallao." [54-1] at 29. When Plaintiff tried to supervise Rollins, Kallao "would undermine her." Id. Kallao "was so bad that the staff collectively wrote a letter to...