Runkel v. City of Springfield et al

Filing 29

OPINION: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (d/e 25 ) is GRANTED. The Court STRIKES the "Additional Undisputed Fact" from Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response (d/e 24 ). The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike the supplemental affid avit of William McCarty (d/e [24-1]) which is attached to Defendants' reply brief. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 20 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment in fa vor of Defendants James O. Langfelder and City of Springfield and against Plaintiff Diane Runkel. Any pending motions are DENIED as MOOT, any pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any scheduled settings are VACATED. This case is CLOSED. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/14/2021. (GL)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 14 July, 2021 12:17:17 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DIANE RUNKEL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, )
and JAMES O. LANGFELDER,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 18-cv-3206

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 20) filed by Defendants City of Springfield and
James O. Langfelder. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2018, Plaintiff Diane Runkel filed a three-count
Complaint (d/e 1) against the City of Springfield (the “City”) and
Mayor James Langfelder in his individual capacity. Count I alleges
that the City discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act by passing Plaintiff over for a promotion
Page 1 of 32

because of her race. Plaintiff is white. Count II, brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Mayor Langfelder violated Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights when he passed
Plaintiff over for a promotion because of her race. Count III alleges
the City retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII when the
City disciplined Plaintiff by rescinding an offered pay increase and
having Plaintiff sign a disciplinary “Last Chance Agreement.”
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on October
22, 2018, arguing that Mayor Langfelder was entitled to qualified
immunity and that Springfield’s Purchasing Agent was not an
“employee” under Title VII but rather a policy-level appointee, such
that the City was immune from suit on the basis of its choice of
Purchasing Agent. See d/e 8. The Court denied Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss on September 9, 2019, holding that the
Purchasing Agent is an “employee” under Title VII and that Mayor
Langfelder was not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading
stage. See d/e 11. Defendants filed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment (d/e 20) on December 1, 2020. Plaintiff filed
her Response (d/e 22) to Defendant’s summary judgment motion on

Page 2 of 32

December 29, 2020. On January 19, 2021, Defendants filed a
Reply (d/e 24) to Plaintiff’s Response. On February 2, 2021,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike (d/e 25) requesting that the Court
strike a “supplemental undisputed fact” included in Defendants’
reply brief. Defendants filed a Response (d/e 26) to the Motion to
Strike on February 16, 2021.
II.

FACTS

The Court draws the following facts from the parties’
statements of undisputed facts and from the evidence submitted by
the parties. Any facts not disputed, or disputed without evidentiary
documentation of the basis for the dispute, have been deemed
admitted. See CDIL-LR 7.1(D)(2)(b)(2).
Plaintiff Diane Runkel was an employee in the City’s Office of
Budget and Management (the “OBM”) between 2007 and 2018.
From 2015 until her resignation in 2018, Plaintiff held the position
of Assistant Purchasing Agent, the “number two position” in the
OBM’s Purchasing Department. D/e 22, p. 1.
In February 2018, Runkel’s supervisor, Sandy Robinson,
resigned his position as Purchasing Agent for the City, creating a

Page 3 of 32

vacancy. Runkel advised the Director of the OBM, William
McCarty, that she was interested in the position. Director McCarty
told her that he would discuss the matter with the Mayor of
Springfield, James Langfelder.
The Purchasing Agent is charged with heading the Purchasing
Department and “directing and overseeing the City’s purchasing
operations.” D/e 22, p. 16. The City’s Municipal Code provides
that the Purchasing Agent is appointed by the director of the OBM
with the advice and consent of the city council. Notwithstanding
this provision, Mayor Langfelder had personally chosen Sandy
Robinson for the position and would also choose Robinson’s
successor. See d/e 20, exh. A, p. 20; exh. B, p. 10, 12. Mayor
Langfelder first offered the Purchasing Agent position to a man
named Darryl Harris, who declined the appointment. On February
14, 2018, McCarty wrote an email to Plaintiff and Kassandra
Wilkin, advising the two of them that he would recommend that
Plaintiff become the acting Purchasing Agent and that Wilkin
become the acting Assistant Purchasing Agent if a permanent
replacement had not been selected by the time Robinson left the

Page 4 of 32

City. Wilkin had worked in the Purchasing Department in a
position subordinate to Plaintiff since 2015. On February 26, 2018,
Mayor Langfelder told Director McCarty that Mayor Langfelder had
chosen Wilkin to be the new Purchasing Agent. Wilkin sent a
resume and a letter expressing interest in the Purchasing Agent
position to Mayor Langfelder’s deputy mayor, Bonnie Drew, on
March 1, 2018.
Also on March 1, 2018, Plaintiff met with Mayor Langfelder
and Deputy Mayor Drew. At this meeting, Plaintiff was offered a
pay raise of $5,000 per year and was informed that Mayor
Langfelder was going to appoint Wilkin to the Purchasing Agent
position. Mayor Langfelder told Plaintiff that he was appointing
Wilkin because she had spent time working at the City’s municipal
utility company, City Water, Light, & Power (“CWLP”) and he wanted
to merge the City’s purchasing with CWLP purchasing. He also told
Plaintiff that he was impressed with Wilkin’s work ethic and that
Wilkin had gotten a master’s degree while working for the City.
Additionally, he told Plaintiff that he had not considered Plaintiff for
the Purchasing Agent position. At the time of the meeting, neither

Page 5 of 32

Mayor Langfelder nor Deputy Mayor Drew knew what position
Plaintiff held in the Purchasing Department.
After her meeting with the Mayor, Plaintiff took a lunch break
that lasted approximately two and a half hours. Plaintiff returned
to her office after a friend of hers, who was also a City employee,
called to tell her “[y]ou need to come back to work.” D/e 20, exh. A,
pp. 35–36. Plaintiff then had a telephone conversation with
Director McCarty, during which she spoke loudly, and stated that
Wilkin had only been selected because she was black. Wilkin
overheard this conversation through the closed door of Plaintiff’s
office, entered, and asked Plaintiff to lower her voice. Plaintiff told
Wilkin, loudly and “not very nicely,” to “[g]et out of my office!”
D/e 22, p. 6. After this altercation, the City’s Human Resources
Director came to the Purchasing Department and asked Plaintiff to
leave for the day. Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave until
March 5, 2018.
On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff sent a text message to Director
McCarty in which she stated that she believed she had been the
victim of “reverse discrimination” based on her race. D/e 22-5,

Page 6 of 32

p. 9. Plaintiff is white. Sandy Robinson, Darryl Harris, and
Kassandra Wilkin are black.
On March 7, Plaintiff went on medical leave due to “acute
emotional stress.” D/e 20, exh. F-38, p. 2. While on medical leave,
Plaintiff sent e-mails to two city aldermen stating that she had
“really thought it was my turn” to be appointed Purchasing Agent.
D/e 22, pp. 6–7. She also wrote that several items in Wilkin’s
resume and application materials were “Absolutely False!” Id. at
p. 7. On March 21 and 22, 2018, Plaintiff’s attorney sent two
letters to Mayor Langfelder on behalf of Plaintiff. The first requested
a copy of Plaintiff’s personnel records and all documentation that
had been used to justify the decision to appoint Wilkin to the
Purchasing Agent position. The second indicated that Plaintiff
believed that Wilkin had been appointed because of her race and
stated that Plaintiff intended to file a claim of discrimination with
the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”).
On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff received a “Final Notice of
Disciplinary Action” from the City, suspending her for 5 days for
engaging in unprofessional conduct. D/e 20, exh. F-22. Plaintiff

Page 7 of 32

returned to work on April 6, 2018, on which date she was presented
with a contract entitled “Last Chance Agreement” that she was told
she had to sign as a condition of being allowed to return to work.
The Last Chance Agreement stated that the raise offer made on
March 1, 2018, was rescinded in lieu of additional discipline for
Plaintiff’s “unprofessional and unbecoming conduct, as well as the
belligerent manner in which she treated a co-worker.” D/e 22, p. 7.
Plaintiff signed the Last Chance Agreement. On April 17, 2018,
Plaintiff resigned from her job with the City.
III.

JURISDICTION

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff=s
claims are based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42
U.S.C. § 1983, both of which are federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. '
1331 (AThe district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States@). Venue is proper because Defendants both reside in
the Central District of Illinois and a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff=s claims occurred in the Central
District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b).

Page 8 of 32

IV.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that no
genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of
the basis for the motion and identifying the evidence the movant
believes demonstrates the absence of any genuine dispute of
material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A
genuine dispute of material fact exists if a reasonable trier of fact
could find in favor of the nonmoving party. Carroll v. Lynch, 698
F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2012). When ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, the Court must construe all facts in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in that party’s favor. Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545,
550 (7th Cir. 2008).
V.
A.

ANALYSIS

Defendants’ Supplemental Affidavit and Additional Fact
Are Struck.
Before addressing the Motion for Summary Judgment, the

Court must first address Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Strike
Page 9 of 32

(d/e 25), which asks the Court to strike an “additional undisputed
fact” included in Defendants’ reply brief (d/e 24). Defendants’ reply
brief does assert a new “undisputed” fact and supports this new
fact with a new affidavit. See d/e 24, p. 5. Neither the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of the Central District
of Illinois authorize the inclusion of additional facts in a Reply brief,
and here it would be unfair to Plaintiff to allow the inclusion of a
new assertedly undisputed fact to which Plaintiff would not have a
chance to respond. See Hartley v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 930 F.
Supp. 349, 353 (E.D. Wis. 1996), aff'd, 124 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 1997)
(striking additional affidavits filed along with reply brief, where
defendant had not received permission to file them as required by
the applicable local rules). The Court will therefore strike the
Supplemental Affidavit of Director McCarty (d/e 24-1) and the
“Additional Undisputed Fact” set forth in Defendants’ reply brief.
B.

Plaintiff Has Not Established That a Triable Issue of Fact
Exists Regarding Her Employment Discrimination Claims.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges two separate employment

discrimination claims. Count One alleges that the City denied her a
promotion to the Purchasing Agent position because of her race in
Page 10 of 32

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Count Two,
which is brought against Mayor Langfelder in his individual
capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Mayor
Langfelder violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal
protection of the law by denying her the same promotion. D/e 22,
p. 25. As these two claims arise out of the same adverse
employment decision, and as “[t]he legal standard for analyzing
racial discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1983 is the same,”
Barnes v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois, 946 F.3d 384, 389 (7th
Cir. 2020), the Court will analyze Plaintiff’s discrimination claims
together.
In evaluating a summary judgment motion on an employment
discrimination claim, one “common, but not exclusive” approach
used by plaintiffs to establish a “triable issue of intentional
discrimination” is the burden-shifting approach created by the
Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). David v. Bd. of Trustees of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508, 846
F.3d 216, 224 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Volling v. Kurtz Paramedic
Servs., Inc., 840 F.3d 378, 383 (7th Cir. 2016)). A plaintiff who

Page 11 of 32

relies on the McDonnell Douglas framework must first establish a
prima facie case of discrimination, at which point the burden shifts
to the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
the adverse employment decision, at which point the plaintiff must
prove that the stated reason is a pretext. Purtue v. Wisconsin Dep't
of Corr., 963 F.3d 598, 601–02 (7th Cir. 2020).
Here, Plaintiff has not relied on the McDonnell Douglas
framework. Instead, Defendants urge the Court to apply McDonnell
Douglas over Plaintiff’s objection. Defendants argue that the
burden-shifting approach remains the exclusive test for deciding
employment discrimination claims on summary judgment.
However, in the wake of Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises., Inc., 834 F.3d
760 (7th Cir. 2016), “a plaintiff need not use the McDonell Douglas
framework.” Igasaki v. Illinois Dep't of Fin. & Pro. Regul., 988 F.3d
948, 957 (7th Cir. 2021). After Ortiz, the “singular question” that a
district court in the Seventh Circuit must address in deciding a
motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination
case is “whether the plaintiff has introduced evidence that would
‘permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the plaintiff's race,

Page 12 of 32

ethnicity, sex, religion, or other proscribed factor caused the . . .
adverse employment action.’” Purtue, 963 F.3d at 602 (quoting
Johnson v. Advocate Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887, 894 (7th
Cir. 2018)). Accordingly, the Court will “ask whether the totality of
the evidence shows discrimination, eschewing any framework or
formula.” Igasaki, 988 F.3d at 958.
The evidence presented by Plaintiff in support of her
discrimination claims includes: (1) statements by Mayor Langfelder
regarding his desire to hire black employees to make Springfield’s
municipal government more representative of the city’s
demographics; (2) evidence allegedly showing that Defendants’
stated reason for promoting Kassandra Wilkin rather than Plaintiff
was pretextual; and (3) evidence that the process Defendants
followed in appointing a Purchasing Agent was different from the
process outlined in Springfield’s Municipal Code.
1.

Defendants’ Desire to Hire and Promote Minority
Employees Is Not Evidence of Discriminatory Intent
Towards Plaintiff.

Mayor Langfelder made statements evincing a desire to
increase the diversity of Springfield’s city government, with the

Page 13 of 32

“ultimate goal” of making the city government representative of the
demographics of the City of Springfield itself. See d/e 20, exh. D,
p. 13. During Mayor Langfelder’s 2019 campaign for re-election,
Mayor Langfelder stated that his administration was “already”
moving towards a municipal government that reflected Springfield’s
demographics, that he had already appointed five individuals who
were women and/or racial minorities to positions in city
government, and that his administration would achieve some form
of proportional representation within the next four years. D/e 20,
exh. F-24, p. 2. Plaintiff also points to an “Affirmative Action Plan”
adopted by the City in 2013, which announces the City’s intent to
remedy the “underutilization” of certain groups by bringing
members of various protected groups into the City’s workforce.
D/e 22-2, p. 5. Finally, Plaintiff points to the fact that Sandy
Robinson was black and that before hiring Wilkin to replace
Robinson Mayor Langfelder attempted to hire Darryl Harris, who is
also black, as Purchasing Agent. D/e 22, p. 30.
While the existence of an affirmative action plan may be
relevant to proving discriminatory intent in an employment

Page 14 of 32

discrimination case, “[t]he mere existence of an affirmative action
policy is, however, insufficient to prove that the [employer] actually
intentionally discriminated against [the employee].” Rudin v.
Lincoln Land Cmty. Coll., 420 F.3d 712, 722 (7th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Whalen v. Rubin, 91 F.3d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir.1996))
(alterations in original). Here, Plaintiff has not presented any
evidence connecting Mayor Langfelder’s statements, or the City’s
affirmative action plan, to discrimination against white employees
or applicants. Rather, Plaintiff simply assumes that any plan for
affirmative action must necessarily involve the selection of less
qualified minority applicants at the expense of better qualified white
applicants. On its face, however, the City’s affirmative action plan
is intended to “ensure that all employment practices are free of”
discrimination on the basis of race and other protected
characteristics. D/e 22-2, p. 7. The plan is premised on the
assumption that removing discrimination will naturally result in a
representative municipal government, via “optimal utilization” of an
existing untapped well of qualified minority candidates. Id. The
goal of the plan is to achieve a representative municipal

Page 15 of 32

government, but the plan does not set any quotas for hiring or
retention of minority candidates.
The only one of Mayor Langfelder’s comments that could be
construed as inconsistent with the plan’s explicitly
anti-discriminatory hiring goals is his statement that a job or
promotion “should go to the minority candidate” where the
minority candidate had similar qualifications or better qualifications
than a white applicant. Id. at p. 51. A jury could reasonably infer
from this statement that Mayor Langfelder was willing to rely on
race to break a tie between otherwise equally qualified applicants.
But the use of race to break a tie between otherwise equally
qualified applicants, in order to remedy an egregious racial
imbalance in a municipal workforce, does not violate Title VII or the
Constitution. See Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara
Cty., Cal., 480 U.S. 616, 635 (1987) (affirmative action plan that
used sex as one factor did not violate Title VII where it was aimed at
remedying a sex imbalance in a local government work force,
announced goals rather than “quotas that must be met,” and did
not create an “absolute bar” to advancement of male employees).

Page 16 of 32

Nor does the fact that Mayor Langfelder attempted to replace
Sandy Robinson with another black candidate, Darryl Harris, before
turning to Wilkin give rise to a reasonable inference of
discrimination. Plaintiff does point out that, of the fourteen City
employees employed at the “Officials and Administrators” level in
2017, Sandy Robinson was the only one who was black, and that
Wilkin was the only black employee in the “Officials and
Administrators” category in 2019. D/e 22, p. 23–24. However, the
fact that the City hired very few black employees to fill high-level
positions tends, if anything, to undermine Plaintiff’s argument that
Mayor Langfelder was inordinately concerned with hiring black
employees. Plaintiff does not offer any reason why Mayor
Langfelder might have been especially interested in hiring a black
person to fill the Purchasing Agent position, as opposed to any
other position in his administration. Construing the low number of
black City officials as evidence of discrimination against a white
employee, because Mayor Langfelder offered one particular position
to three black candidates in a row, would require an unjustifiable
inferential leap. See E.-Miller v. Lake Cty. Highway Dep't, 421 F.3d

Page 17 of 32

558, 564 (7th Cir. 2005) (refusing to take the “huge inferential leap”
of inferring race discrimination based on minor incidents that
“could easily have been accidental”); Springer v. Durflinger, 518
F.3d 479, 485 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming summary judgment where
the circumstantial evidence presented was “totally unremarkable
because of its normalness”)
2.

Plaintiff Has Not Shown that Defendants’ Stated
Reasons for Appointing Wilkin Are Pretextual.

Plaintiff also argues, citing Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., LLC,
636 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2011), that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment should be denied because a jury could find that the
stated reasons for their hiring decision are pretextual or “fishy.”
D/e 22, pp. 31–32.
“One can reasonably infer pretext from an employer’s shifting
or inconsistent explanations for the challenged employment
decision.” Appelbaum v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 340
F.3d 573, 579 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, however, Defendants’ nondiscriminatory explanations for their decision to hire Wilkin have
not changed and are not inconsistent. Throughout the course of
this litigation, Defendants have maintained that they hired Wilkin
Page 18 of 32

to be the Purchasing Agent because of her qualifications—
specifically, her educational background and her experience
working for the City’s municipal utility company, CWLP. 1 See d/e
20, p. 14; d/e 20, exh. A, p. 34; exh. D, p. 50. Mayor Langfelder
gave these same two reasons for the hiring decision to Plaintiff
when he met with her on March 1, 2018, to explain that she would
not be getting the appointment and to offer her a $5,000 raise
instead. See d/e 22, p. 5 (“Mayor Langfelder indicated he was
impressed with Ms. Wilkin’s work ethic . . . and that she had gotten
a master’s degree while working for the City.”); d/e 22, p. 12
(“Mayor Langfelder told Plaintiff that he believed Ms. Wilkin, who
had spent time working at City, Water, Light & Power . . . was his
choice for Purchasing Agent because he wanted to merge City
purchasing with CWLP purchasing.”). Wilkin had a bachelor’s
degree and a master’s degree when she was appointed Purchasing
Agent, both of which she had earned while working full time for the

Plaintiff argues that Wilkin’s CWLP experience is irrelevant because it “is not something that
the City contends it is relying upon in making its decision to promote Wilkin.” D/e 22, p. 12.
However, the City repeatedly references Wilkin’s CWLP experience as one of the qualifications
that led to Mayor Langfelder’s hiring decision in its Motion for Summary Judgment. See d/e
20, p. 14 (“The Mayor also indicated other qualifications of Ms. Wilkin that he prioritized in
making his selection. He valued her prior experience working in the utilities department,
CWLP, since he had plans to consolidate that department’s purchasing with the City’s.”).
1

Page 19 of 32

City. D/e 20, p. 14. Mayor Langfelder asserts that he had plans to
consolidate CWLP’s purchasing department with the City’s
purchasing department and wanted a Purchasing Agent with
experience at CWLP to oversee this transition. See d/e 20, p. 14;
d/e 20, exh. A, p. 34; exh. D, p. 50.
Plaintiff asserts that the City’s reasons appear to be
“manufactured completely after the fact” because Mayor Langfelder
informed his OBM director of his decision to hire Wilkin on
February 26, 2018. D/e 22, p. 32. Plaintiff points out that, as of
February 26, 2018, Wilkin had not yet submitted her application
and resume to Mayor Langfelder, Mayor Langfelder “did not
understand” what Wilkin’s role was in the Purchasing Department
or what Plaintiff’s role was in the purchasing department, and
Mayor Langfelder was unaware of Plaintiff’s own lack of academic
credentials. Id.
However, the fact that Wilkin did not formally apply for the
Purchasing Agent position until early March does not mean that
Mayor Langfelder was unaware of her qualifications in late
February. Plaintiff has not introduced any evidence that

Page 20 of 32

contradicts Mayor Langfelder’s testimony that he was aware of
Wilkin’s educational credentials and her employment history with
CWLP when he decided to appoint her to the Purchasing Agent
position. It is irrelevant whether, in making the hiring decision at
issue here, Mayor Langfelder was also aware of Plaintiff’s own
qualifications and experience, and whether he compared them in a
fair and thorough way with Wilkin’s. As long as the nondiscriminatory reasons relied on by Defendants are non-pretextual,
it does not matter whether he made a wise or thoroughly considered
hiring decision. See Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc., 839 F.3d
556, 564 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Pretext involves more than just faulty
reasoning or mistaken judgment on the part of the employer; it is
[a] lie, specifically a phony reason for some action.”) (quoting
Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724, 736 (7th Cir. 2008))
(alteration in original).
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants’ reliance on Wilkin’s
qualifications is suspicious because Wilkin was clearly less wellqualified than Plaintiff. Plaintiff bases this assertion entirely on the
fact that she had more experience in purchasing than Wilkin and

Page 21 of 32

was Wilkin’s supervisor prior to Wilkin’s promotion. D/e 22, p. 32.
None of the four Purchasing Agents who preceded Wilkin had
worked in the City’s Purchasing Department prior to their
appointment as Purchasing Agent. See d/e 20, exh. H, ¶¶4–6.
Given the clear evidence that Purchasing Department experience
had not been a factor in the hiring of any recent Purchasing Agent,
no reasonable jury could infer racial bias from Mayor Langfelder’s
decision to consider qualifications other than Purchasing
Department experience.
3.

Mayor Langfelder’s Decision to Personally Select the
Purchasing Agent Is Not Evidence of Discriminatory
Intent.

Plaintiff also asserts that “Defendants clearly did not follow
their own internal policies regarding how the position was to be
filled” and that this departure is evidence of discrimination.
D/e 22, p. 30. The Springfield Municipal Code provides that the
City’s Purchasing Agent shall be “appointed by the director of
budget and management with the approval of the mayor and the
advice and consent of the city council.” Springfield Municipal Code,
§ 38.11. During the administration of Mayor J. Michael Houston,

Page 22 of 32

Mayor Langfelder’s predecessor, Mayor Houston’s OBM Director did
in fact decide who would be appointed as Purchasing Agent.
D/e 20, exh. A, p. 31. Mayor Langfelder, however, preferred to
choose his administration’s Purchasing Agents himself, and
Director McCarty agreed to cede decision-making authority and to
rubber-stamp the Mayor’s chosen candidate. See d/e 22, exh. B,
p. 12; d/e 22-4, p. 30. Mayor Langfelder, with Director McCarty’s
assent, appointed Sandy Robinson, a black man, as his first
purchasing agent, and later appointed Wilkin to replace Robinson
when Robinson resigned. See d/e 20, exh. A, p. 20; d/e 20, exh. B,
p. 10, 12; d/e 20, exh. E, p. 69.
Plaintiff’s authority for the proposition that such a departure
from internal policies is evidence of discrimination is Rudin v.
Lincoln Land Cmty. Coll., 420 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2005). In that
case, a white candidate for a tenure track position at a community
college was passed over in favor of a black candidate, and the
Seventh Circuit held that there was a triable issue of fact regarding
whether racial discrimination had taken place, in part because the
college “did not follow its own internal procedures with respect to

Page 23 of 32

the hiring process for the position.” Id. at 723. However, an
employer’s departure from its own policies is not evidence of
discrimination unless there is “evidence of a specific policy that is
regularly enforced and followed in similar situations.” Bagwe v.
Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866, 882 (7th Cir.
2016). In Rudin, the employer departed, not just from the letter of
its internal procedures, but from the practices it had consistently
used in the past. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that a jury could
reasonably have inferred that the departure was for the purpose of
fast-tracking the particular minority candidate who was chosen
instead of the plaintiff. See Rudin, 420 F.3d at 723. Here,
Plaintiff’s assertion that a reasonable jury could infer that Mayor
Langfelder “ignored the Municipal Code,” d/e 22, pp. 32–33,
because he wanted to maintain a consistent number of black
employees is not plausible, as Mayor Langfelder’s administration
observed a consistent internal procedure over the course of two
Purchasing Agent appointments, following the same procedure in
replacing Sandy Robinson that was followed for the replacement of
the previous Purchasing Agent, Jay Wavering.

Page 24 of 32

To the extent that Plaintiff argues that a jury could infer that
Mayor Langfelder departed from the Municipal Code in both the
Robinson and Wilkin purchasing agent appointments because he
wanted to first increase and then maintain the number of black
employees at a certain level of municipal government, Plaintiff has
not presented any evidence to support such a theory, other than
evidence of the City’s aspirational affirmative action policy and
Mayor Langfelder’s generalized desire to hire black employees. Nor
has Plaintiff presented evidence that Mayor Langfelder’s policy of
personally choosing his Purchasing Agent differed from his
approach when making appointments to other similar positions.
Accordingly, the Court finds that a jury could not reasonably infer
discriminatory intent from Langfelder’s policy of choosing his
Purchasing Agent personally.
C.

Plaintiff Has Not Established the Existence of a Triable
Issue of Fact Regarding Retaliation.
In addition to Plaintiff’s claims alleging that she was not

appointed Purchasing Agent because of her race, Plaintiff also
claims that the City retaliated against her, in violation of Title VII,

Page 25 of 32

by rescinding the $5,000 pay increase that she had previously been
offered and placing her on a disciplinary “Last Chance Agreement.”
Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an
employee for opposing an unlawful employment practice or
participating in an investigation of an unlawful employment
practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). To survive a motion for summary
judgment, a plaintiff who alleges retaliation must “produce enough
evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that (1) she engaged in a
statutorily protected activity; (2) the [employer] took a materially
adverse action against her; and (3) there existed a but-for causal
connection between the two.” Abrego v. Wilkie, 907 F.3d 1004,
1014 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Burton v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of
Wis. Sys., 851 F.3d 690, 695 (7th Cir. 2017)). The City does not
dispute that Plaintiff engaged in a statutorily protected activity by
alerting the City of her intent to file a discrimination claim with the
EEOC and/or a lawsuit. Nor does the City deny that it took a
materially adverse action against Plaintiff by rescinding her pay
increase and placing her on a Last Chance Agreement. Therefore,
the determinative question is whether a reasonable jury could find

Page 26 of 32

that Plaintiff’s protected activities were a but-for cause of the City’s
decision to discipline Plaintiff.
As evidence for causation, Plaintiff states that: (1) there was no
nonretaliatory reason for the City’s discipline; (2) Mayor Langfelder
and other City employees have failed to offer adequate
nonretaliatory reasons for why they disciplined Plaintiff; (3) Director
McCarty has described some of Plaintiff’s statements as
“inappropriate,” D/e 22, pp. 39–40; and (4) the timing of the
discipline was suspicious because the incident that supposedly
triggered the discipline took place on March 1, 2018, but the
discipline was not administered until April 6, 2018, “very shortly
after” Plaintiff threatened to file an EEOC complaint.
The City has offered a number of nonretaliatory reasons for its
decision to discipline Plaintiff. Plaintiff left work for two and a half
hours after learning that she had not been selected for the
Purchasing Agent position, returning only after another City
employee called her to tell her “[y]ou need to come back to work.”
D/e 20, exh. A, pp. 35–36. When Plaintiff returned, she had a loud
phone conversation with Director McCarty in which she stated that

Page 27 of 32

Wilkin had only been selected because she was black. When Wilkin
overheard this conversation through the closed door of Plaintiff’s
office and entered to ask Plaintiff to lower her voice, Plaintiff told
Wilkin, loudly and “not very nicely,” to “get out of my office!”
D/e 22, p. 6. After this altercation, the head of Human Resources
came down to the Purchasing Department and asked Plaintiff to
leave for the day. Id. Later, Plaintiff e-mailed two city aldermen to
tell them that she had “really thought it was my turn” to be
appointed Purchasing Agent and that Wilkin’s application materials
had included false statements. D/e 22, pp. 6–7. The Last Chance
Agreement rescinds the offered pay increase “[d]ue to the
unprofessional and unbecoming conduct, as well as the belligerent
manner in which [Plaintiff] treated a co-worker.” D/e 20, exh. F-18.
This justification is consistent with the justification that the City
now offers in its Motion for Summary Judgment. See d/e 20,
pp. 18–19. Moreover, given the facts outlined above, there is no
reason for the Court to assume that this justification is pretextual.
Plaintiff asserts that Mayor Langfelder “has never explained
why” he made the decision to withdraw his salary increase offer.

Page 28 of 32

When asked about the decision during his deposition, Mayor
Langfelder stated that he did not recall rescinding the offered
increase. See d/e 20, exh. D, p. 59. This lack of memory does not
give rise to a reasonable inference of retaliatory motive. Nor does
the fact that the City’s Human Resources Director expressed a
belief during his deposition that a certain firsthand account of
Plaintiff’s outburst was written in a memorandum which did not
emerge in discovery give rise to such an inference. See d/e 22,
p. 39 (explaining that the HR Director believed the decision to
discipline Plaintiff had been spurred by a written memorandum,
although no such memorandum has been produced). The
depositions in question were taken approximately two and a half
years after the Last Chance Agreement was signed.
Disciplining an employee for insubordinate or belligerent
behavior is not retaliation, even if the employee’s behavior is
motivated by the employee’s belief that they have been
discriminated against and takes place after an employee engages in
protected activity. See Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc., 839 F.3d
556, 564 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming grant of summary judgment

Page 29 of 32

where employee was fired for insubordination after he sent a “testy
email” accusing employer of retaliation and threatening to file a
complaint with the EEOC). Title VII does not prohibit the City from
disciplining its employees for inappropriate comments, even if those
comments relate in some way to protected activity. Director
McCarty did not state that it was inappropriate for Plaintiff to file or
threaten to file an EEOC complaint or lawsuit alleging racial
discrimination. Rather, he stated that it was inappropriate for her
to announce, in a raised voice that her future supervisor could hear
through a closed door, that the future supervisor had only been
promoted because she was black. Plaintiff may disagree with
Director McCarty’s opinions on workplace etiquette, or with the
opinions of the City’s Human Resources Director on the same
subject, but Title VII does not prohibit employers from disciplining
employees for “foolish or trivial or even baseless” reasons, so long as
the reasons are “honestly believed” and not a pretext for retaliation.
See id. (quoting Culver v. Gorman & Co., 416 F.3d 540, 546 (7th
Cir. 2005)).

Page 30 of 32

Finally, the timing of the City’s decision to discipline Runkel
cannot support a reasonable inference of retaliation, as “suspicious
timing alone is almost always insufficient to survive summary
judgment.” Leitgen v. Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc., 630 F.3d
668, 675 (7th Cir. 2011). While there may be “rare occasions”
where the timing of a disciplinary action is so suspicious that
summary judgment is inappropriate, Culver v. Gorman & Co., 416
F.3d 540, 546 (7th Cir. 2005), Plaintiff has not shown that the lapse
of slightly more than a month between a workplace incident and a
related disciplinary action is unusual. See Sledge v. Wilkie, 771 F.
App'x 664, 667 (7th Cir. 2019) (“[A] time lag of five months, by itself,
is insufficient to support an inference of retaliation.”). Furthermore,
Plaintiff has admitted that she received a “Final Notice of
Disciplinary Action” on March 26, 2018, meaning that the actual
lapse of time between the conduct giving rise to the City’s
disciplinary action and the City’s decision to impose discipline was
less than the 36-day period Plaintiff alleges. See d/e 22, p. 7.

Page 31 of 32

VI.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
(d/e 25) is GRANTED. The Court STRIKES the “Additional
Undisputed Fact” from Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Response
(d/e 24). The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike the supplemental
affidavit of William McCarty (d/e 24-1) which is attached to
Defendants’ reply brief. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above,
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 20) is GRANTED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment in favor of
Defendants James O. Langfelder and City of Springfield and against
Plaintiff Diane Runkel. Any pending motions are DENIED as
MOOT, any pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any
scheduled settings are VACATED. This case is CLOSED.

ENTERED: July 14, 2021
FOR THE COURT:

/s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 32 of 32