Young v. Will County Dept. of Public Aid, 88-3469

• Decision Date: 22 August 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-3469,88-3469
• Citation: 882 F.2d 290
• Parties: 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1089, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,266 June YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 290

882 F.2d 290

50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1089,

51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,266

June YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-3469.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued June 5, 1989.

Decided Aug. 22, 1989.

Armand L. Andry, Oak Park, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Laurel Black Rector, Asst. Atty. Gen., Welfare Litigation Div., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before CUMMINGS, WOOD, Jr., and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.

I.

Plaintiff June Young appeals from the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on her claim of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 621, et seq.) and dismissing similar pendent state claims. The district court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and alternatively that any adverse actions taken toward the plaintiff by the defendant were justified by legitimate business reasons. We affirm.

II.

Plaintiff began employment with defendant, Will County Office of the Illinois Department of Public Aid ("Will County"), at the approximate age of 47 in November 1980, and remained an employee on the date of oral argument in this case. She was hired for the position of Caseworker II in the Non-Assistance Food Stamp Unit under the supervision of Paula Ambrosch who was approximately 27 years of age at the time plaintiff began work. Young's job responsibilities required her to make food-stamp eligibility redeterminations for households previously determined eligible for benefits. Households remain eligible for food-stamp assistance for a specified number of months not to exceed one year. In order to continue benefits beyond the initial eligibility period, the household must be reexamined as to size, income and other eligibility factors. In order to avoid an interruption in the receipt of benefits, the redetermination must be completed prior to the expiration of the current food-stamp certification period. A system of lists denoting the age of pending recertification cases is utilized by Will County to monitor the processing of claims. The "H list" is a compilation of the oldest cases which have remained pending for at least 29 days, requiring an immediate decision in order to avoid a break in benefits.

Plaintiff claims that she was the subject of discrimination, harassment and retaliation at the hands of her younger supervisor, Paula Ambrosch, in the form of unfavorable performance reviews and generally hostile behavior. Specifically, Young alleges that when she began work at Will County she did not receive her Food Stamp Manual necessary to perform her duties until after other new employees received them. Her job performance was first reviewed in January 1981, when Ambrosch noted that Young's work production was slow, suggesting that she should increase her productivity. The review procedure employed by Will County requires both the employee and supervisor to evaluate the employee's performance and to discuss any discrepancies in the perception of each. In the January 1981 review, Young agreed that she needed improvement in the areas of job knowledge, quality of work and follow-up, although there was disagreement between them over Young's use of time and productivity. Young was again evaluated in June 1981, when Ambrosch noted that plaintiff had made some progress but needed continued improvement in the area of work productivity. Young agreed that she needed improvement in the areas of productivity, planning and follow-up. Young was again evaluated in March 1982, at which time she was promoted from Caseworker II to Caseworker III. Ambrosch's comments indicated that Young had met or exceeded Ambrosch's expectations.

Relations between the two allegedly took a turn for the worse in December 1983, when, after returning from a sick leave, Young alleges Ambrosch refused to allow a fellow employee of Young, Marian Egigio, to assist Young in her backlogged caseload as was routinely done when an employee was absent from work due to an illness. As a result, in March 1983 Young had 142 cases on the H list. Based on Ambrosch's unsatisfactory review in April 1983, Young's annual salary increase was withheld for approximately four months until August 1, 1983, resulting in a loss of $212 in income. In July 1984 Young was evaluated by Ambrosch, again finding that Young needed improvement in use of her time, planning, and follow-up of her cases. Plaintiff agreed that she needed improvement in the areas of follow-up and productivity.

Ambrosch also issued approximately six corrective action plans, each of which involves a confirmation of a conference between the employee and supervisor to discuss a performance deficiency and time frame within which the deficiency should be corrected. The corrective action plans were issued between 1981 and 1984 and primarily addressed Young's inability to process claims in a timely fashion and reduce the number of cases on the H list.

Young's job performance subsequently improved to the point where she no longer had any cases on the "G list" (25 to 29 days old) in the fall of 1984. In January 1985 Young was evaluated by another supervisor, Grace Vavrina, and received a favorable job review. This review also contained remarks from Ambrosch concurring in the assessment of Young's improvement in performance. As further evidence of discriminatory conduct, plaintiff asserts that by 1988 she was earning $12,000 less than two younger, less educated, less experienced employees (presumably Cynthia Ragusa and Kathleen DeChecko) in the same position with the same length of employment service. Young also asserts that Ambrosch wrote derogatory memos to Young and orally reprimanded her in the presence of other workers. Young also complains that although she received the same formal training as other employees in her department, she was denied the informal training and assistance of Ambrosch due to her prejudice toward older workers.

At the outset, we must address defendant's contention that plaintiff's claim is time-barred for her failure to file this charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") within 300 days of the violation. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(e). All doubts on jurisdictional timeliness are to be resolved in favor of trial. Pastrana v. Federal Mogul Corp., 683 F.2d 236, 242 (7th Cir.1982). Many of the incidents contained in Young's complaint occurred more than 300 days prior to her filing a claim with the EEOC on July 29, 1984. Plaintiff counters defendant's charge of untimeliness by characterizing the allegations in her complaint to be a "continuing violation" as recognized in United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558, 97 S.Ct. 1885, 1889, 52 L.Ed.2d 571. In order to fall within this doctrine, there must be a present violation, not simply the effects of a past violation. Caldwell v. Nat. Ass'n of Home Builders, 771 F.2d 1051, 1055 (7th Cir.1985). To succeed under the continuing violation theory, plaintiff must demonstrate that the acts of alleged discrimination are part of an ongoing pattern of discrimination and that at least one of the alleged discrete acts of discrimination...