Kuhr v. Chicago Public Schools et al

Filing 84

Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on 12/29/2011: Mailed notice (gds, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOANN KUHR,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 09 C 6357
Judge Robert W. Gettleman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff JoAnn Kuhr has filed an amended complaint against the Board of Education for
the City of Chicago alleging discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., (“ADEA”). Defendant has moved for summary
judgment. For the following the reasons, the court grants defendant’s motion.
BACKGROUND1
On August 9, 2006, plaintiff interviewed for an open librarian position at John F.
Kennedy High School (“Kennedy”). Plaintiff’s initial interview was with Kennedy’s principal,
James Gorecki. Plaintiff was asked to interview a second time, with Assistant Principal Anna
Garcia Berlanga.
At the time of these interviews, plaintiff was a 59 year-old female with approximately 25
years of experience working in schools, mainly as a librarian. After interviewing a total of four
candidates, Gorecki offered the job to Lori Sanders, whom plaintiff admits was more qualified
than she. Sanders initially accepted the position, but after an interaction with the other librarian

1

The following facts, taken from the parties’ L.R. 56.1 Statements and Responses, are
undisputed.

at Kennedy, withdrew her acceptance. After Sanders withdrew her acceptance, Gorecki
continued to look for viable candidates. According to his affidavit, Gorecki did not consider
plaintiff a viable candidate because of “her lack of history with the Board [of Education of the
City of Chicago], her weak interview responses, the frequency with which she changed jobs, and
her lack of ideas for a high school library program.” On August 15, 2006, just six days after her
last interview, and not knowing whether the position had yet been filled, plaintiff wrote to
Gorecki accusing him of discrimination and essentially threatening to sue. Plaintiff sent similar
letters to seventeen other schools with whom she had interviewed. It is unclear from the record
whether Gorecki ever saw this letter.
In early September, Gorecki was informed that he had to close a teacher position at
Kennedy. Earlier that summer he had hired Santo Gutierrez as a full-time teacher. Gutierrez had
worked as a substitute teacher at Kennedy the previous school year and Gorecki was impressed
with his work and had observed that Gutierrez “worked well with staff, had a good rapport with
students, staff and parents, was well organized, and had good classroom management and
communication skills.” Despite Gutierrez’s impressive performance, Gorecki had to close his
position because he had the least seniority. At that point, Gorecki decided to offer the library
position to Gutierrez because he was familiar with and impressed by Gutierrez and wanted to
keep him on the staff. Gutierrez was no more than 25 years old when he accepted the librarian
position as a temporarily assigned teacher.
Plaintiff alleges she was discriminated against because of her age in not being offered the
librarian position over Gutierrez.

2

DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, reveals that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sirvidas v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 60 F.3d 375,
377 (7th Cir. 1995). When there is no direct evidence of age discrimination, plaintiff must
proceed under the indirect burden-shifting method. Id. (referring to the burden shifting method
of proof set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The burdenshifting method begins with the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate a prima facie case for age
discrimination. Id. To demonstrate a prima facie case, plaintiff must establish that she: (1) was
a member of the protected class2; (2) applied for a position or a transfer for which she was
qualified; (3) was not hired; and (4) a substantially younger person who was similarly situated
was hired instead. Zaccagnini v. Charles Levy Circ. Co., 338 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 2003).
Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to
articulate a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” for its hiring decision. Sirvidas, 60 F.3d at
377-78. A legitimate, non-discriminatory reason refers to an actual reason for the employer’s
action that is not based on discriminatory motives such as race or age. See Furnco Const. Corp
v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577-78 (1978).
If the employer provides a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, the burden
then shifts back to plaintiff to show that the employer’s proffered reason is merely pretext for
age discrimination. Sirvidas, 60 F.3d at 378. A plaintiff must show that the employer’s

2

The protected class under the ADEA is 40 years or older. Johnson v. Zema Systems
Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 746 (7th Cir. 1999).
3

proffered reason is “unworthy of credence.” Driskell v Continental Cas. Co., 961 F.Supp. 1184,
1187 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Pretext means more than a mistake on the part of the employer; pretext
“means a lie, specifically a phony reason for some action.” Wolf v. Buss (America) Inc., 77 F.3d
914, 919 (7th Cir. 1996). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must produce
enough evidence from which “a rational fact-finder could infer that the company’s proffered
reasons were pretextual.” Sirvidas, 60 F.3d at 378.
Plaintiff has no problem establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination. Because
she was 59 at the time of the alleged discrimination she was in the protected age group of over
40 years old. Her extensive work history as a librarian made her qualified for the position. She
was not hired and someone substantially younger was given the position. Defendant attempts to
argue that plaintiff and Gutierrez were not similarly situated because Gutierrez had a good work
history as a teacher for the Board of Education of City of Chicago, and specifically under
Principal Gorecki, and plaintiff did not. The position at issue was for librarian, however, and
Gutierrez did not have experience as a librarian. In fact, Gutierrez was not even certified to
work as a librarian at the time he was hired, and his acceptance of the position was predicated on
him completing the requirements for a State of Illinois certificate in library/media. Plaintiff had
25 years of experience working in schools as a librarian. She certainly can make a case she was
the more qualified applicant, leading to a presumption of discrimination.
Defendant has, however, articulated a legitimate reason for Gutierrez’s selection.
Principal Gorecki essentially made a strategic business decision in offering the librarian position
to Gutierrez instead of plaintiff. Because Gorecki had been impressed with Gutierrez’s teaching

4

skills and did not want to lose him, he offered Gutierrez the library position as a temporarily
assigned teacher.
Although one may question the wisdom in Gorecki’s decision, that is not a job for the
court. It is sufficient for defendant to offer a non-discriminatory reason so long as it is the
honest and actual reason for defendant’s action. See Mills v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 171 F.3d
450, 458-59 (7th Cir. 1999). Gorecki has stated numerous times the impressive qualities
Gutierrez exhibited in his work at Kennedy. It is obvious (and plaintiff does not dispute) that
Gorecki honestly felt Gutierrez was a valuable commodity to the school and offered him the
librarian position to keep him as a teacher. That decision appears to have been based on
Gutierrez’s qualifications and not any illegitimate or discriminatory reasoning.
Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to show that defendant’s reasoning for hiring
Gutierrez was a pretext for age discrimination. She relies solely on the fact that she had much
more experience than Gutierrez at the time of the hiring process. This helps to prove plaintiff’s
qualifications for the position, but it does not offer any evidence that could support a finding that
Gorecki ultimately based his hiring decision on an age discriminatory basis.
Indeed, although Gorecki initially dismissed plaintiff as a viable candidate based on
qualifications, defendant has never suggested that Gutierrez was more qualified for the library
position than was plaintiff. Defendant’s position is that once Gorecki learned that he had to let
Gutierrez go as a teacher, the landscape changed. At that point Gorecki made the decision to use
the librarian position as a means to retain a teacher he did not want to lose from his staff. Once
that decision was made, the candidates’ qualifications as a librarian became irrelevant. That was

5

a legitimate business decision, and absent any evidence that it was based on the age difference
between Gutierrez and plaintiff, one that this court must accept as non-pretextual.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

ENTER:

December 29, 2011

__________________________________________
Robert W. Gettleman
United States District Judge

6