Chapman v. Simplex Inc

Filing 36

OPINION: The Motion of Defendant Simplex, Inc. for Summary Judgment 33 is ALLOWED. The final pretrial conference and trial setting are Canceled. This case is closed. The Clerk will enter a Judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 1/30/2017. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 31 January, 2017 08:25:17 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MELVIN K. CHAPMAN, SR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SIMPLEX, INC.,
Defendant.

NO. 14-3296

OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Melvin K. Chapman, Sr., filed a two-count Complaint
asserting that his employer, Simplex, Inc., discriminated based on race by
denying him economic opportunities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
(Count I) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Count II).
Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
It is allowed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
(A)
Melvin K. Chapman (“the Plaintiff” or “Chapman”) is an adult black
male. Simplex, Inc. (“the Defendant” or “Simplex”) is located within this
judicial district and is engaged in the business of manufacturing load banks
and fuel supply systems that work in conjunction with backup power
control and delivery.
On January 12, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for an auto Computer
Assisted Drawing (“CAD”) technician position that Simplex advertised in
the State Journal-Register. The Defendant’s president testified he does not
know if there is a job description for CAD technician positions.
The Plaintiff did not possess a bachelor’s degree or an associate’s
degree. Although Chapman’s application materials provided that he had
completed numerous CAD courses, he did not have a certificate of
completion in computer-aided drafting or any experience. Chapman still
had one additional class to complete in blue print reading before he could
obtain a certificate of completion as a CAD technician.

2

Therefore,

Chapman had no degree, no job experience and no certificate of completion
as an auto CAD technician when he applied at Simplex for the auto CAD
position.
The cover letter and resume did reveal that Chapman had extensive
welding and fabrication experience. Chapman admits he had 30 years of
experience as a welder when he applied at Simplex and was much more
qualified as a welder than a CAD technician. Simplex hired Chapman at
the age of 62 to work as a welder. Chapman may have been the only
African-American working in the mechanical engineering department at
Simplex.
On July 2, 2007, the Defendant promoted the Plaintiff to a CAD
technician. Chapman claims Simplex discriminated against him based on
race when Simplex hired him as a welder, instead of a CAD technician,
because Simplex hired Aaron Antonacci in 2008 with no more experience
or credentials than Chapman had when he applied at Simplex to be a CAD
technician.

After hearing Antonacci discuss his education and his

experience in the break room at Simplex in 2008, Chapman concluded he

3

had been the victim of discriminatory hiring practices in 2006. However,
Chapman never reported his beliefs or perception to his supervisor or
management.

Chapman also did not file a complaint with any

administrative agency or initiate litigation.
By the time of his promotion to CAD technician, the Plaintiff had a
CAD certificate. During or before his employment with Simplex, Chapman
had applied only at a “temp” agency to become a CAD technician.
On or about March 15, 2011, Chapman said he saw a noose hanging
from the side of a file cabinet at co-worker Jeff Strawn’s desk while
Chapman was getting some documents or blueprints. Chapman said he
asked Strawn if that was a fisherman’s knot.

Strawn stated that if

Chapman found the knot offensive, he would take it down. Chapman
replied he found the knot offensive and Strawn immediately took the knot
down. It was well over three years before Chapman mentioned the noose
to Simplex officials–in September 2014. Chapman did not report the
incident to a supervisor or management or raise the allegation at the factfinding conference.

4

In January 2010, following the earthquake in Haiti, the Plaintiff
reported that Jeff Strawn stated that the people on the news the previous
night looked “like fu****g monkeys.” Chapman admitted he did not report
the comment to his supervisor or management. Chapman did not say
anything to Strawn at that time. Moreover, Chapman did not bring it up
at the fact-finding conference before the Illinois Department of Human
Rights. Chapman did not complain about Strawn’s comment for over four
years.
(B)
In July 2007, the Plaintiff’s first performance appraisal as a draftsman
rated his “overall rating” as below expectations. The accuracy, clarity,
consistency, and thoroughness of work, as well as the quality control and
attention to detail were below expectations. Chapman’s ability to meet
productivity goals/standards, and his ability to effectively handle pressure
and stress were below expectations as well. The appraisal also stated that
Chapman “needs to pay closer attention to details. Drafting skills require
further refinement to move on to more complicated tasks. Pace of work

5

must be improved without compromising accuracy.”
On June 1, 2008, the Defendant hired Aaron Antonacci through a
“CAD Technician Internship.” Simplex employed Antonacci as an intern
as part of a CAD certificate program at Lincoln Land Community College
(“LLCC), where Antonacci had a grade point average of 3.5 out of 4.0.
Simplex received 50% reimbursement of Antonacci’s student’s salary during
the cooperative work study experience for that semester according to Mary
Beth Ray, the Director of Career Development for LLCC.
The Plaintiff received his next job performance appraisal in July of
2008. Chapman was again rated below expectations in “quantity of work”
and “quality of work.” Comments on the July 2008 Performance Appraisal
include “details and accuracy on DWG features require continuous
diligence.

Pace of work has continued.

Continued improvement is

expected.” The overall rating was meets expectations. Areas needing
attention and improvement were identified as “pace of work and attention
to detail requires continuous diligence for improvement. Double check flat
patterns for accurate and complete feature placement.”

6

The August 2008 Performance Appraisal for Aaron Antonacci had no
below expectation marks and included several exceeds expectations ratings.
The overall rating for Antonacci was meets expectations and the appraiser’s
comments stated, “Aaron has done a good job of learning our products and
procedures and needs to gain a deeper understanding of our product
design.”
The Plaintiff’s next performance appraisal in July 2009 did not
include any below expectation notations. Comments in the performance
appraisal included an assessment that Chapman’s “work quality and pace
has improved.

Continued improvement expected.”

Chapman’s next

performance appraisal in July 2010 had an overall rating of “meets
expectations.”

Areas needing attention and improvement included

“continued improvement of pace of work and attention to detail is
expected.”
Aaron Antonacci’s August 2010 performance appraisal did not include
an overall rating but did include 12 areas where he exceeded expectations.
Comments

included

in

the

area

7

of

improvement

and

major

accomplishments in Antonacci’s appraisal stated “Aaron does not have an
electrical background, but has done a very good job of learning the basics.”
The appraiser’s comments also stated “Aaron is able to take basic
instructions (start from WOXXXXX and change these things) and produce
accurate drawings. This ability increases the throughput in engineering.”
The Plaintiff’s July 2011 Performance Appraisal did not include any
substandard performance categories, but did include the following
comments for areas to improve upon: “encourage renewed commitment to
accurate speedy completion of projects.”
Aaron Antonacci’s August 2011 Performance Appraisal included five
areas of exceeds expectations and additional appraisal comments stating:
“Aaron does an excellent job. Works very efficiently. Very few errors.
Able to work with minimal guidance.”
In January 2012, the Defendant promoted Aaron Hashman from a
welder position to a CAD technician and paid Hashman $14.10 an hour.
Hashman, a Caucasian, had worked as a welder at Simplex from May 19,
2008, until he was promoted to CAD technician in January 2012. It took

8

Hashman almost four years to be promoted to CAD technician, as
compared to Chapman’s year and-a-half. Chapman had been getting paid
thirty cents ($.30) more per hour than Hashman at the time of Hashman’s
promotion to a draftsman, making $14.40 an hour since July 27, 2011,
compared to the $14.10 per hour Hashman was paid.
The Plaintiff’s July 2012 Performance Appraisal once again included
comments under his “areas to improve upon” which stated “improvement
of accuracy, pace of work and attention to detail are always expected.”
Aaron Antonacci’s August 2012 Performance Appraisal included five
“exceeds” ratings and stated the following, “Aaron is our ‘go to’ guy in
drafting. He gets all the difficult projects and does an excellent job.”
In April 2012, four months after Aaron Hashman had become a
drafter in the electrical engineering department, his performance appraisal
included two substandard ratings because Hashman was still learning the
products and not familiar with end users. Hashman’s appraisal also stated
under management comments that “we will have Aaron spend some time
in wiring, assembly, and testing to become more familiar with our products.

9

He has expressed an interest in attending an electrical class at LLC.”
In September 2012, Simplex employee Ernie Poani received a
performance appraisal in which he was rated adequate in all performance
measures, but which included additional comments stating his “work speed
needs to increase.”
On August 23, 2012, Simplex completed its last performance
appraisal on the Plaintiff the morning of his termination from employment,
which again included comments under “Areas to Improve Upon” stating:
“Attention to detail, increased pace of work and improved accuracies always
expected.” Garland Stevens, Chapman’s immediate supervisor, testified
that he did not know Chapman was going to be terminated in the afternoon
when he completed Chapman’s performance appraisal that morning.
However, Stevens reiterated that Chapman needed to improve the pace of
his work and also be more accurate in the work that he performed. Simplex
President Thomas Debrey testified Stevens previously had advised him that
“Melvin’s workload was low, that he was a low to poor performer at CAD
and that he largely was running copies all day.”

10

Garland Stevens testified that Chapman’s duties included drafting
projects in addition to scanning. Moreover, Chapman had completed CAD
projects. The engineer log does not have a start date and a completion date
for each of Chapman’s projects. Stevens testified that there is not a listing
of errors for each of Chapman’s projects. The Defendant states, however,
that accuracy was expressly identified in writing as an area of improvement
in five of Chapman’s last six performance appraisals.
(C)
On August 15, 2013, Tom Debrey emailed Steve Cappellin to inquire
about Melvin Chapman’s productivity. The email stated:
How do we get a handle on what Melvin actually spends his 8
hours doing? I have asked Garland, and Garland will represent
that he is the glue that holds the group together. I have no way
of quantifying what Melvin actually does other than run copies
all day.
We are overstaffed and need to cut low performers.
Steve Cappellin responded the same day as follows:
I will log onto his computer after-hours tonight and see what is
there. Will also inquire of Joe about what he sees, hears and
thinks about his productivity. He certainly does not appear to
be stressed with his workload but I have limited contact.
11

In 4 of the last 5 paychecks since June, he has worked overtime
that has averaged @7.7 hours/week for those weeks . . . the
week without overtime was due to vacation taken. Otherwise,
his overtime for the year is negligible.
Debrey did not know what Cappellin found. Cappellin testified he did not
find anything specific in his review of the computer.
When asked to explain whether he understood his performance was
deficient in any way based on the numerous comments stating his pace of
work needed to increase, Chapman explained that if his overall rating was
meets expectations, he could not understand how he was underperforming,
notwithstanding the repeated comments about his speed or accuracy.
On August 22, 2013, Debrey emailed Cappellin directing him to
terminate Brian Huston, Ernie Poani and Melvin Chapman the following
day. The email stated in part:
In every case, reason is fall off in business. Secondary reason in
all 3 cases is low productivity. So, I think you need to be blunt
and state it thusly. Business is down significantly and we need
to reduce labor cost. Therefore we measure the relative
productivity and separate the low performers. WE need to be
explicitly [sic] lest we be accused of age discrimination. I have
detailed schedules to support the productivity position. You
have dialed financials to support low business.

12

On August 23, 2013, Simplex laid off three employees: (1) Melvin
Chapman; (2) Ernest Poani; and (3) Brian Huston.

Each employee’s

Termination Summary cited: “reduction in business, coupled with low
productivity/performance. Business is down significantly and we need to
reduce our labor costs by measuring the relative productivity and separating
the low performers.”

Chapman’s summary also stated, “Melvin has

demonstrated no interest in growth of his responsibilities, functions at a
casual pace, and is a low performer.” Steve Cappellin testified that Simplex
President Tom Debrey did not make any changes to his proposed wording
on the termination forms.
Simplex terminated 62-year-old Ernest Poani after he had worked as
a draftsman at Simplex since March 2008. Poani was Caucasian, had
significant training and job experience in CAD drafting, and a certificate of
completion from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Apprenticeship Training
Program as a Draftsman.
Simplex terminated 56-year-old Brian Huston after he had worked at
Simplex for about a year-and-a-half.

13

Huston is Caucasian, had an

associate’s degree and significant engineering experience working for others
and for himself.
Tom Debrey stated the idea for the reduction in force originated from
him. Debrey inquired on numerous occasions as to Melvin Chapman’s
productivity at work. Steve Cappellin, Simplex’s Chief Financial Officer,
had very little contact with Chapman. Cappellin did not talk to Garland
Stevens about Chapman’s termination. However, Cappellin spoke to Joe
Xavier, the Engineering Manager, who intimated that Chapman was “not
the fastest guy in the toolbox” and his output was not the same as other
employees. Cappellin’s comments on Chapman’s termination document
were perceptions of Chapman’s work style and his work ethic.
Steve Cappellin explained that in 2012 Simplex had bulked up its
work force to reflect the volume and the complexity of the work it had been
doing. However, Cappellin stated that in 2013, there was a decrease in
business and a decrease in net revenues so Simplex decided to cut their
engineering force by about 10%. Cappellin explained that 10% would have
meant a cutback of 3 or 4 employees in 2013. This number did not include

14

the temporary workers on the production force which are used as a
supplement to the permanent work force and allows Simplex to scale up or
down rather quickly. Simplex had already laid off most of its temporary
workforce at the time Chapman, Poani and Huston were let go.
Both Garland Stevens and Steve Cappellin testified that none of the
individuals who were laid off have been replaced. Stevens also testified that
Chapman’s duties were taken over by other CAD technicians in the
department.
Tom Debrey also testified that at no point in time during Chapman’s
tenure with Simplex did he ever complain to a supervisor or manager about
any discriminatory treatment.

Although both Debrey and Cappellin

wanted to be explicit in the reasons for the termination of the three
employees

to

ensure

Simplex

would

not

be

accused

of

age

discrimination–given the age of all three employees–the issue of race
discrimination never entered their minds.
Brian Spencer, HR Manager, testified that the first time he found out
about Melvin Chapman’s termination was on the afternoon of his dismissal.

15

Simplex did not have any specific procedures for implementing a reduction
in force.
(D)
On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination
with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and EEOC alleging age
discrimination and race discrimination. Brian Spencer signed a response
to the charge stating that job performance was not a factor in Chapman’s
termination. The Defendant explains this is because Chapman was laid off
as part of a reduction in force and not due to misconduct of any type.
Simplex states that, to the extent Chapman’s pace of work and attention to
detail played a role in who would be laid off as part of a reduction in force,
Chapman’s supervisor had noted on five of the last six performance
appraisals that pace of work and attention to detail were areas on which
Chapman needed to improve.
In his charge, Chapman identified Aaron Antonacci, Aaron Hashman
and Ernie Poani as employees who had been treated more favorably than
him under comparable circumstances. Poani was laid off simultaneously

16

with Chapman for identical reasons. Both Chapman and Poani were hourly
employees.
Aaron Antonacci was initially hired through an internship program
through Lincoln Land Community College and his performance proved so
exceptional that Simplex maintained his employment. Antonacci’s August
2013 performance appraisal included five outstanding performance ratings
in competency with comments like:
It is rare to find an error in Aaron’s work. This has been
noticed by others in engineering also. Takes initiative to create
and maintain standard drawings. Always willing to help others.
Calls vendors to determine best component. Then
provides recommendation.
Aaron does an outstanding job. He can handle complex
projects with minimum instructions, and produces virtually
error free results.
Aaron Hashman’s 2013 Performance Appraisal had two ratings in
outstanding performance and included the following comments:
Aaron has made good progress learning all the features &
options of our products. He needs to grow his product
knowledge.
Aaron is the first person learning Solidworks on the fuel
system product line. He’s made very good progress while still
keeping up with other responsibilities. Aaron has also made
excellent progress in general knowledge of our engineering
17

processes.
Hashman’s January 2014 Performance Appraisal included comments such
as:
Aaron has been proactive in developing Solidworks models
for our equipment. These models will be used by all engineering
personnel.
Aaron’s skills have grown considerably since joining the
engineering department. He needs to focus on further
developing his electrical skills. Specifically, understanding and
applying relay logic.
Simplex paid Chapman a higher hourly rate than Hashman at the time of
Chapman’s discharge.
The Plaintiff also alleged he “was not provided training or upgraded
computers comparable with the other CAD technicians.” He also told
Garland Stevens that his computer did not have the capability to run
SolidWorks. Chapman later admitted, however, that he did not know the
difference between the performance of any of the computers used by the
CAD technicians and that he did receive the same initial “Solidworks”
training the other CAD technicians received.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts the Defendant discriminated

18

against him on the basis of race. Simplex moves for the entry of summary
judgment as to the Plaintiff’s claims, alleging that most are either
procedurally barred or time barred. Simplex further contends that Plaintiff
cannot prevail under either the direct or indirect method of proof. Finally,
Simplex provided a reasonable explanation for Chapman’s explanation.
The Defendant alleges the Plaintiff is unable to create a genuine issue of
material fact regarding whether the asserted reasons are pretext.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if the motion is properly supported
and “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
Court construes all inferences in favor of the non-movant. See Siliven v.
Indiana Dept. of Child Services, 635 F.3d 921, 925 (7th Cir. 2011). To
create a genuine factual dispute, however, any such inference must be based
on something more than “speculation or conjecture.” See Harper v. C.R.
England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297, 306 (7th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

19

Because summary judgment “is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit,”
a “hunch” about the opposing party’s motives is not enough to withstand
a properly supported motion. See Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479,
484 (7th Cir. 2008). Ultimately, there must be enough evidence in favor
of the non-movant to permit a jury to return a verdict in its favor. See id.
B. Analysis
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an
employee based on the “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-2(a)(1).

“Section 1981 prohibits race

discrimination in the making or forming of contracts.” Smiley v. Columbia
College Chicago, 714 F.3d 998, 1002 (7th Cir. 2013). At this stage, courts
typically use the same legal standards in considering Title VII and § 1981
race discrimination claims. See id.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently
emphasized that in job discrimination cases such as this, a court’s role is to
determine “[w]hether a reasonable juror could conclude that [Chapman]
would have kept his job if he had a different [race] and everything else had

20

remained the same.” Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 764
(7th Cir. 2016). The court further explained:
Evidence must be considered as a whole, rather than asking
whether any particular piece of evidence proves the case by
itself–or whether just the “direct” evidence does so, or the
“indirect” evidence. Evidence is evidence. Relevant evidence
must be considered and irrelevant evidence disregarded, but no
evidence should be treated differently from other evidence
because it can be labeled “direct” or “indirect.”
Id. at 765.
The Plaintiff here relies on circumstantial evidence. The Seventh
Circuit and courts within its jurisdiction have often analyzed discrimination
cases by addressing whether a plaintiff has presented a “convincing mosaic”
of circumstantial evidence. In Ortiz, the Seventh Circuit reiterated that the
phrase “convincing mosaic” is not a legal test and overruled previous
opinions “to the extent that they rely on “convincing mosaic” as a
governing legal standard.” 834 F.3d at 765. The phrase is a metaphor
describing a case built on circumstantial evidence. See Lane v. Riverview
Hospital, 835 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2016). “The core issue is whether
[Chapman] has offered evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to infer

21

that he would not have been [terminated] if he were not African American
and everything else remained the same.” Id.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not offered any such
evidence. The record establishes that Simplex President Tom Debrey
believed that a reduction in force was necessary because of a decrease in
business in 2013. Simplex CFO Steve Cappellin testified that workers were
added in 2012 because of the volume and complexity of the work the
Defendant was doing at the time. Because there was a decrease in business
and net revenues in 2013, however, Debrey and Cappellin determined that
Simplex needed to cut the engineering force by about ten percent. This
meant a cutback of three or four employees.
The Plaintiff has failed to offer evidence that would allow a reasonable
jury to infer that he would not have been laid off if he were not AfricanAmerican. At the same time the Defendant terminated two Caucasians
who, like Chapman, were perceived as low performers.

Although

Chapman’s overall performance may have been noted as “satisfactory,” five
of his previous six performance appraisals stated that he needed to improve

22

in the areas of pace of work and attention to detail. The Defendant claims
that Chapman’s “satisfactory” performance meant that he likely would have
remained employed had Simplex not needed to reduce its force. Simplex
was faced with that decision and, based on Chapman’s performance
appraisals, the record suggests that he and the other terminated employees
were appropriate candidates for termination.
The Plaintiff does not dispute that in 2013, Simplex’s business and
revenues were down from the previous year. There is no question that this
would qualify as a legitimate business reason for a reduction in force.
Simplex laid off the majority of its temporary workers, in addition to
Chapman, Poani and Huston. None of the individuals who were laid off
have been replaced. The duties of Chapman and the other employees were
spread among other employees. These undisputed facts are consistent with
Simplex’s assertion that a reduction in force was appropriate given the state
of business in August 2013.
Although the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used the reduction
in force in an impermissible manner to “target” a black man, there simply

23

is no evidence that was the case. The same reasons were given for the
simultaneous termination of two white men. Accordingly, it is difficult to
see how the impetus for the reduction in force could have been to ensure
Chapman’s dismissal.
Additionally, the Plaintiff cannot show that similarly situated
employees in a non-protected class were treated more favorably in
connection with the reduction in force. Aaron Hashman, who is Caucasian,
received a more favorable evaluation than Chapman in 2013. Hashman
also received a favorable evaluation in January 2014.

In contrast to

Chapman, there were no documented concerns about Hashman’s pace of
work and attention to detail.1 Chapman alleges that Simplex did not have
a job description for CAD technicians or a defined compensation policy.
In those respects, however, Chapman is being treated no different than
other CAD technicians.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the

foregoing facts do not support the Plaintiff’s discrimination claim.

As Simplex notes, Chapman was treated more favorably than Hashman
in at least one respect. Chapman was promoted from welder to CAD
technician two years faster than was Hashman.
1

24

A portion of Chapman’s termination document states, “Melvin has
demonstrated no interest in growth of his responsibilities, functions at a
casual pace, and is a low performer.” The Plaintiff contends that this
document–written by Cappellin and approved by Debrey–reflects racial
stereotypes and suggests that blacks to do not seek self-improvement “to
pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” However, the statement that
Chapman works at a casual pace and is a low performer is consistent with
a number of his evaluations. As for the statement that Chapman has not
demonstrated any interest in growth of his responsibilities, Cappellin
testified this perception was based on his conversations with individuals
who were familiar with Chapman’s work.
It is true that the Plaintiff’s supervisor, Garland Stevens, did not
know that Chapman would be terminated until Brian Spencer called and
told him to send Chapman downstairs. While this might suggest that not
everyone at Simplex was on the same page regarding the reduction in force,
the Court notes that Stevens also believed that Chapman needed to
improve the pace of his work, exhibit more attention to detail and increase

25

the accuracy of his work, as reflected in the evaluations.
Although the Plaintiff alleges he did not have adequate computer
training, Chapman acknowledges that he did not know the difference
between the performance of any computers used by the CAD technicians
and that he did receive the same initial “Solidworks” training the other
CAD technicians received.

Chapman suggests that other employees

received additional Solidworks training. However, Chapman did not recall
going to Garland Stevens or management and requesting further training.
Accordingly, Simplex may not have known that Chapman believed he
needed additional training.
The Plaintiff also points to the acts of a co-worker, Jeff Strawn, who
displayed a noose in the workplace in 2011 and made racially offensive
comments in his presence in 2010. These incidents involved a co-worker,
not Simplex management, and were not communicated to management
until September 2014.

Simplex management was not aware of these

incidents involving Strawn until more than one year after Chapman was
laid off. Accordingly, these occurrences do not support the Plaintiff’s

26

discrimination claim. To the extent Chapman is alleging a hostile work
environment claim, the Defendant would be entitled to summary judgment
because he cannot establish a basis for employment liability.2 See OrtonBell v. Indiana, 759 F.3d 768, 773 (7th Cir. 2014) (noting the elements for
hostile work environment claims).
The Plaintiff further alleges there are informal procedures not to
rehire after a reduction in force. Therefore, Chapman was not eligible for
rehire and, based on the negative wording on the termination materials, he
would not have been able to provide documentation to an employer to
account for his employment at Simplex. Once again, the Plaintiff is not
being treated any differently from the other employees who were
terminated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot show it was based on race.
III. CONCLUSION
After construing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiff, the Court
concludes that the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the
Plaintiff’s race discrimination claims under § 1981 and Title VII. The
As the Defendant alleges, the Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims
also are procedurally barred and time-barred.
2

27

Defendant had a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason–a reduction in
force based on financial circumstances–and terminated the Plaintiff and two
white employees. The Plaintiff has not created a genuine issue of material
fact that his termination was a pretext for discrimination.
Ergo, the Motion of Defendant Simplex, Inc. for Summary Judgment
[d/e 33] is ALLOWED.
The final pretrial conference and trial setting are Canceled.
This case is closed.
The Clerk will enter a Judgment in favor of the Defendant and against
the Plaintiff.
ENTER: January 30, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge

28