Hansen v. State of Illinois et al

Filing 57

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff Stewart Hansen's Motion for Summary Judgment 50 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 28 December, 2018 08:54:27 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
STEWART J. HANSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-3256

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stewart Hansen’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 50) (Motion). The parties consented to
proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a
United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order entered May 25,
2018 (d/e 16). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
Hansen alleges that Defendants discriminated against him and
retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Complaint (d/e 1); 29
U.S.C. § 2615 (FMLA); 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (ADA). Hansen’s allegations
are set out in detail in this Court’s Opinion entered June 12, 2018 (d/e 20)
(Opinion 20). In summary, Hansen worked for Defendant Illinois
Department of Central Management Services (CMS). Hansen alleges that
Page 1 of 12

he has bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. In late April or May 2016,
he received an accommodation under the FMLA that allowed him to arrive
late to work. He alleges the Defendants discriminated against him and
retaliated against him thereafter. On August 11, 2016, Hansen was
arrested at work for possession of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. On
September 12, 2016, CMS suspended Hansen from work indefinitely
without pay due to the arrest. On January 5, 2017, the Sangamon County,
Illinois, State’s Attorney dropped all charges against Hansen.
Hansen applied for unemployment benefits. Hansen attached to his
Complaint the State Administrative Law Judge’s decision on his application.
The Administrative Law Judge determined that the indefinite suspension
was a discharge for purposes of Illinois unemployment compensation law
and that Hansen was entitled to unemployment benefits. See Opinion 20,
at 2-5; Complaint, attached Collective Exhibit, at 28 of 33.
Hansen now moves for summary judgment. To support his Motion,
Hansen states that he filed a charge of discrimination and received a right
to sue letter. Hansen further states that “many things occurred that showed
a systematic series of actions and that goes against procedures, contract
language, and CMS personnel code.” Motion, at 2-3. Hansen further relies
on the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion attached to the Complaint.
Page 2 of 12

Defendants oppose the Motion. Defendants claim that Hansen
resigned and was not discharged. Defendants correctly note that Hansen
stated in his Complaint that he left his position voluntarily. See Complaint,
at 5 (“I left this position . . . . voluntarily due to the on-going harassment and
hostile work environment . . . .”). Defendants submitted a note dated
October 11, 2016 (Note), in which Hansen wrote,
I Stewart Hansen hereby resign from CMS/ Do IT effective
immediately. I wish to withdraw all monies immediately due to
Life Crisis.
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 50)
(d/e 54) (Response), Exhibit C, Note. Hansen signed the Note. The
Defendants argue that the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion and the right
to sue letter are not probative on any issue in Hansen’s ADA and FMLA
claims now before this Court. The Defendants also argue that Hansen’s
allegations of violations of internal procedures, the CMS personnel code,
and union collective bargaining agreements are vague and unsupported,
and do not establish his ADA and FMLA claims.
ANALYSIS
Hansen now moves for summary judgment. At summary judgment,
Hansen must present evidence that demonstrates the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323Page 3 of 12

24 (1986). The Court must consider the evidence presented in the light
most favorable to Defendants. Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine
issue for trial must be resolved against Hansen.

Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Once Hansen has met his burden,
the Defendants must present evidence to show that issues of fact remain
with respect to an issue essential to Defendants’ case, and on which
Defendants will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. at 322; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In this case, issues of fact preclude summary
judgment.
Hansen alleges discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA
and retaliation in violation of the FMLA. See Opinion 20, at 10-14. To
show an absence of material fact, Hansen must present evidence on each
element of his claims.
ADA Discrimination
To show a lack of an issue of fact on his ADA discrimination claim,
Hansen must present evidence that he was a qualified individual with a
disability and he suffered an adverse employment action because of his
disability. Kersting v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 250 F.3d 1109, 1115 (7th Cir.
2001). He may present evidence that directly tends to prove these
Page 4 of 12

elements, or he may present evidence of his prima facie case under the
burden-shifting method. Under the burden-shifting method, Hansen must
present evidence that he was a qualified person with a disability, he met his
employer’s reasonable expectations, he suffered an adverse employment
action, and similarly situated employees who were not disabled were
treated better than he. See Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises, Inc., 753 F.3d
676, 685 (7th Cir. 2014). If he presents such evidence, the Defendants are
required to present a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action. If the Defendants present such a reason, Hansen
must then present evidence that the stated reason is a pretext. Pretext
means a dishonest explanation, a lie, rather than an oddity or an error. Id.
The Seventh Circuit has clarified that a party may use any type of
competent evidence (e.g., eye witness testimony, documents, direct
evidence, circumstantial evidence) to meet its burdens under either the
direct method or the indirect burden-shifting method. See David v. Board
of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, 846 F.3d 216, 224 (7th
Cir. 2017); Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir.
2016).
Hansen alleges that he is a qualified individual with a disability
because he has bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression. The Defendants
Page 5 of 12

do not dispute this for purposes of this Motion, at least. He also presents
evidence that he suffered two adverse employment actions. He was
suspended without pay, and his employment was terminated. He alleged
in his Complaint that he suffered other acts of discrimination and
harassment by the individual Defendants Byron Meunch and Deb Harvey
(Individual Defendants), but he presents no evidence on these allegations
at this time. Hansen, therefore, is not entitled to summary judgment on any
claim based on any claims of harassment.
Defendants dispute whether Hansen was discharged. Defendants
present the October 11, 2016 Note as evidence that Hansen resigned.
Defendants state that Hansen was suspended pending the outcome of the
drug crimes against him. The criminal charges were still pending when
Hansen gave Defendants the Note. The Note creates an issue of fact on
the question of whether Hansen voluntarily resigned or was discharged.
Hansen is not entitled to summary judgment on his claims based on his
discharge.
Hansen argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion
establishes as a matter of law that he did not resign. The Administrative
Law Judge found that CMS terminated his employment by putting him on
indefinite unpaid leave under the circumstances of this case. Hansen,
Page 6 of 12

however, fails to show that the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion decides
the issue in this case of whether he resigned or was discharged. Another
proceeding may decide an issue in a subsequent proceeding if the first
proceeding has preclusive effect. To establish that the administrative
decision on Hansen’s unemployment claim has preclusive effect in this
case, Hansen must show that the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion was
made in an adjudicative proceeding that included the following elements:
(1) adequate notice; (2) a right to present evidence on one's
own behalf, and to rebut evidence presented by the opposition;
(3) a formulation of issues of law and fact; (4) a final decision;
and (5) the procedural elements to determine conclusively the
issues in question.
Banks v. Chicago Housing Authority, 13 F.Supp.2d 793, 796 (N.D. Ill.
1998). Hansen does not present evidence on the sufficiency of the notice
or whether the decision was a final decision.
Even if Hansen could show that the Administrative Law Judge’s
decision is the type of administrative decision that may have preclusive
effect, he still must present evidence that the decision has preclusive effect.
Hansen must prove that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was:
(1) a final decision on the merits must have been reached; (2)
the issues on which estoppel is sought were essential to the
decision; (3) the party against whom estoppel is invoked had a
full opportunity to address the issues in the case; and (4) the
issues decided are identical to the issues on which estoppel is
sought.
Page 7 of 12

Id. Hansen has not shown that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision
was a final decision on the merits. Hansen further has not shown that the
issues in this case are the same. The Administrative Law Judge held that
an indefinite suspension was a dismissal for purposes of the state
unemployment compensation law. Hansen does not present any authority
that an indefinite suspension without pay is a discharge for purposes of the
ADA and FMLA.
Even if the Administrative Law Judge’s decision had preclusive effect,
the decision would only establish that Hansen was discharged. The
Administrative Law Judge’s decision would not constitute evidence of the
other elements. At this point, however, issues of fact exist regarding
whether Hansen was discharged. He is not entitled to summary judgment
on his claims related to his discharge.
Hansen’s indefinite suspension without pay, however, was an
adverse employment action. See Whittaker v. Northern Illinois University,
424 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2005) (three-day suspension without pay would
be an adverse employment action). Under the direct method, Hansen must
present evidence that CMS suspended him because of his status as a
qualified individual with a disability. Hansen presents no evidence on this
point.
Page 8 of 12

Hansen claims that the Defendants violated the personnel code,
policies, and the collective bargaining agreement. Violations of these
provisions are not directly relevant. The issue is whether the Defendants
violated the FMLA or the ADA, not these other provisions. Hansen does
not present evidence to show that the alleged violations of these provisions
tends to show that he was suspended because he was disabled.
Moreover, Hansen presents no evidence to support his allegations that the
Defendants violated these other provisions.
Hansen cites the right to sue letter from the EEOC as proof of his
claim. The EEOC makes no determination of the validity of any claim when
it issues a right to sue letter. See Complaint, Collective Exhibits at 1 of 33,
Right to Sue Letter (“The EEOC issues the following determination. Based
upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information
obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the
respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any
other issues that might be construed as-having been raised by this
charge.”). The right to sue letter does not tend to prove any element of
Hansen’s claims. Hansen is not entitled to summary judgment on his ADA
discrimination claim under the direct method.

Page 9 of 12

Hansen further presents no evidence on a required element under
the burden-shifting method. Hansen presents no evidence that Defendants
did not suspend a similarly situated employee who was not disabled and
who was arrested at work and charged with a serious crime. Absent
evidence of better treatment of a similarly situated non-disabled employee,
Hansen is not entitled to summary judgment under the indirect method.
Under either method, Hansen is not entitled to summary judgment on his
ADA discrimination claim.
Retaliation
To secure summary judgment on his retaliation claims, Hansen must
present evidence that: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered
an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the
protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Luckie v.
Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708, 714 (7th Cir. 2004). In the alternative,
Hansen may present evidence under the burden-shifting method. Hansen
may present evidence that: (1) he engaged in a statutorily protected
activity; (2) he met the CMS's legitimate expectations as an employee; (3)
he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) he was treated less
favorably than similarly situated employees who did not engage in
statutorily protected activity. Nichols v. Southern Illinois UniversityPage 10 of 12

Edwardsville, 510 F.3d 772, 784-85 (7th Cir. 2007). If Hansen presents
evidence on these elements, then the Defendants must present a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. Hansen must then present
evidence that the stated reason was a pretext. Id.
Hansen engaged in protected activity when he asked for an
accommodation under the FMLA to allow him to come late to work.
Hansen also suffered an adverse employment action when he was
suspended without pay. Hansen, however, has no evidence of a causal
connection between his FMLA request and his suspension. Hansen got his
accommodation in May 2016. He was not arrested until August 2016.
Third-party law enforcement officials arrested and charged Hansen, not the
Defendants. Hansen alleges some conspiracy between the Defendants
and the police but presents no evidence on this claim. Hansen was
suspended pending the outcome of the charges. He fails to show a causal
connection between the FMLA accommodation and the suspension.
Hansen also fails to present evidence on each element of the burden
shifting method. Hansen presents no evidence that Defendants did not
suspend a similarly situated employee who was not disabled and who was
arrested at work and charged with a serious crime. He therefore is not
entitled to summary judgment on his retaliation claims.
Page 11 of 12

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Hansen’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 50) is DENIED.

ENTER: December 28, 2018

s/

Tom Schanzle-Haskins

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 12 of 12