Zegarra v. John Crane, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 October 2016
• Docket Number: 15 C 1060
• Citation: 218 F.Supp.3d 655
• Parties: Mario ZEGARRA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

218 F.Supp.3d 655

Mario ZEGARRA, Plaintiff,

v.JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant.

15 C 1060

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed October 31, 2016

Barbara Ann Susman, Susman & Associates, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Brian Scott Schwartz, Joshua David Holleb, Klein, Dub & Holleb, Limited, Highland Park, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge

Mario Zegarra brought this suit against his former employer, John Crane, Inc.("JCI"), alleging race, color, and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. , and retaliation for complaining about the discriminatory denial of overtime.Doc. 1.Discovery is closed and a jury trial is set for February 6, 2017.Doc. 58.JCI has moved for summary judgment on all claims.Doc. 51.The motion is granted.

Background

JCI filed its summary judgment motion on March 18, 2016.Ibid.At Zegarra's request, the court set a very generous briefing schedule, with his response not due until June 13, 2016, nearly three months later.Doc. 57.On June 10, Zegarra moved to extend the deadline, Doc. 59, and the court extended the deadline to July 11, Doc. 61.On July 11, Zegarra moved for a further extension to August 12.Doc. 62.The next day, the court denied the motion for failure to comply with LocalRule 5.3(b), but on its own motion extended the deadline to July 21.Doc. 65.The order noted: "Given the extremely generous original briefing schedule ..., the 28–day extension already given to Plaintiff ..., and the impending pretrial and trial dates ..., if Plaintiff does not respond to the summary judgment motion by 7/21/2016, the court will treat the motion as having been submitted and will rule forthwith."Ibid.The court amended that order on July 13 as follows: "The 7/12/2016 order ... is amended to state that [i]f Plaintiff responds to the summary judgment motion by 7/21/2016, Defendant shall reply by 8/4/2016."Doc. 66.

On July 20, Zegarra filed an "emergency motion to modify the July 12, 2016order based on new extenuating circumstances."Doc. 67.The motion asserted that due to an email error, Zegarra's counsel did not see the July 12 order until July 19.Id. at ¶¶ 5–6.The court denied Zegarra's motion, noting that it did "not assert or even suggest that Plaintiff's counsel did not see the 7/13/2016 order ... when it was issued"; that the July 13 order "highlighted the existence of the 7/12/2016 order and, in particular, explicitly referenced the 7/21/2016 due date for Plaintiff's response to Defendant's summary judgment motion"; and that Zegarra had not been deprived of an opportunity to respond to JCI's summary judgment motion, because "all told, he was given over four months to respond ...."Doc. 69.Zegarra did not respond to JCI's summary judgment motion by July 21, so JCI's motion is ready for decision.SeeFlint v. City of Belvidere , 791 F.3d 764, 768(7th Cir.2015)("[C]ase management depends on enforceable deadlines ....In managing their caseloads, district courts are entitled to—indeed they must—enforce deadlines.")(internal quotation marks omitted);Raymond v. Ameritech Corp. , 442 F.3d 600, 605(7th Cir.2006)("Rule 6(b) ... clearly gives courts both the authority to establish deadlines and the discretion to enforce them.");Reales v. Consol. Rail Corp. , 84 F.3d 993, 996(7th Cir.1996)("The district courts must manage a burgeoning caseload, and they are under pressure to do so as efficiently and speedily as they can, while still accomplishing just outcomes in every civil action....Necessarily, they must have substantial discretion as they manage their dockets.");Shine v. Owens–Ill., Inc. , 979 F.2d 93, 96(7th Cir.1992)("[J]udges must be able to enforce deadlines.")(internal quotation marks omitted).

Consistent with the local rules, JCI filed a LocalRule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts along with its summary judgment motion.Doc. 53.Each factual assertion in the LocalRule 56.1(a)(3) statement cites evidentiary material in the record and is supported by the cited material.SeeN.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(a)("The statement referred to in (3) shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph.").The Seventh Circuit "has consistently upheld district judges' discretion to require strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1."Flint , 791 F.3d at 767(citing cases);see alsoStevo v. Frasor , 662 F.3d 880, 886–87(7th Cir.2011)("Because of the high volume of summary judgment motions and the benefits of clear presentation of relevant evidence and law, we have repeatedly held that district judges are entitled to insist on strict compliance with local rules designed to promote the clarity of summary judgment filings.");Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc. , 559 F.3d 625, 632(7th Cir.2009)("Because of the important function local rules like Rule 56.1 serve in organizing the evidence and identifying disputed facts, we have consistently upheld the district court's discretion to require strict compliance with those rules.")(internal quotation marks omitted).Here, the problem is not that Zegarra did not strictly comply with Local Rule 56.1, but rather that he did not comply at all.He did not file any response materials—no brief, no LocalRule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response to JCI's LocalRule 56.1(a)(3) statement, and no LocalRule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of additional facts.Accordingly, the court accepts as true the facts set forth in JCI's LocalRule 56.1(a)(3) statement.SeeCurtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 807 F.3d 215, 218(7th Cir.2015)("When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.");Parra v. Neal , 614 F.3d 635, 636(7th Cir.2010);Rao v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc. , 589 F.3d 389, 393(7th Cir.2009);Cady v. Sheahan , 467 F.3d 1057, 1061(7th Cir.2006);Raymond , 442 F.3d at 608.

That said, the court is mindful that "a nonmovant's failure to ... comply with Local Rule 56.1... does not ... automatically result in judgment for the movant....[The movant] must still demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc. , 667 F.3d 877, 884(7th Cir.2012).The court therefore will recite the facts in JCI's LocalRule 56.1(a)(3) statement and then determine whether, on those facts, JCI is entitled to summary judgment.The court sets forth the following facts as favorably to Zegarra, the non-movant, as the record and Local Rule 56.1 allow.SeeWoods v. City of Berwyn , 803 F.3d 865, 867(7th Cir.2015).In considering JCI's motion, the court must assume the truth of those facts, but does not vouch for them.SeeArroyo v. Volvo Grp. N. Am. , 805 F.3d 278, 281(7th Cir.2015).

JCI manufactures, sells, and services engineered sealing systems for industrial markets.Doc. 53 at ¶ 3.Zegarra worked for JCI from December 19, 1988 through April 24, 2013.Id. at ¶ 1.During 2012 and 2013, Zegarra worked in JCI's Central Parts Warehouse.Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7.His primary job duties involved printing sales orders from a computer and placing them in designated buckets so that "pickers" could grab the orders and select parts.Id. at ¶ 6.Zegarra was the only employee in the Central Parts Warehouse with that primary duty.Id.at ¶ 7.Zegarra's race is Hispanic/Latino, his color is non-white, and his national origin is Peruvian.Id.at ¶ 2.At the time of his termination, Zegarra was 44 years old.Ibid.

JCI's employee handbook outlines a three-step discipline process: (1) a written warning that "remains active in an employee's personnel file" for twelve months; (2) a final warning; and (3) termination.Id.at ¶¶ 17–18.The handbook sets forth an "Employee Appeal Procedure" that permits employees to address workplace complaints with their supervisor, their supervisor's boss, the human resources department, and more senior leaders.Id.at ¶ 26.Zegarra acknowledges that he received the handbook during the relevant time period; he does not recall seeing the Employee Appeal Procedure, but acknowledges that it is contained in the handbook that he received.Id.at ¶¶ 16, 27.

On or about April 27, 2012, Jerry LaVigne, JCI's Manager of Warehouse and Logistics, spoke to Zegarra and issued him a written warning for having not worn "personal protective equipment" on at least eight occasions over the preceding eight months.Id.at ¶¶ 10, 19, 21.LaVigne issued the warning because Zegarra did not wear safety glasses and safety shoes in the warehouse.Id.at ¶ 20.Zegarra did not appeal the warning.Id.at ¶ 28.

To anonymously report unsafe acts or work rules violations, JCI employees may use a "Hazard Identification Ticket"("HIT").Id.at ¶ 29.In April 2013, JCI received two HITs asserting that Zegarra was viewing pornography on his work computer during work hours.Id.at ¶ 30.Because JCI's Internet Access Policy forbids employees from using the internet to view sites containing sexually explicit material, LaVigne and Joe Vitetta, a shop floor supervisor in the Central Parts Warehouse, commenced an investigation.Id.at ¶¶ 13, 31, 40.Brett Zumsteg, an information technology specialist at JCI, reviewed the websites that Zegarra had visited and the images that he had viewed to determine if the HITs' allegations were true.Id.at ¶ 32.Based on Zumsteg's investigation, JCI concluded that Zegarra had accessed Craigslist.com, raising the possibility that he had viewed explicit images on his work computer.Id.at ¶ 33.

Zegarra admits that he viewed sexually explicit images on his...