The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Maxine Scott ("Scott") charges Sears, Roebuck and Co.
("Sears") with employment discrimination in violation of:
1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII") and
2. the Illinois Human Rights Act (the "Act"), Ill.Rev.Stat.
ch. 68, ¶¶ 1-101 to 9-102.
Scott also claims her termination by Sears violated its
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the
contract between them.*fn1 Sears has now moved under
Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 56 for summary judgment. For the reasons
stated in this memorandum opinion and order, Sears' motion is
1. Scott's Position with Sears
On June 30, 1980 Scott was hired to participate in a job
training course Sears was then conducting under contract with
the Chicago Alliance of Business Employment and Training, Inc.
Scott's wages were subsidized in part by federal Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act ("CETA") funds (Pl. Proposed
Findings of Fact ["Findings"] ¶¶ 3-4). Scott never entered into
a written contract with Sears beyond signing her employment
application form, which said she would be an at-will employee
(Scott Cont. Dep. 50 and Ex. A).
After Scott completed a 12-week course in automotive
mechanics, she was assigned to work in the automotive
department of Sears' Orland Park store. At that time the
automotive department was managed by Ernest McDowell
("McDowell"), with Joseph Sanders ("Sanders") as the shop
manager (Findings ¶ 6).
Scott was assigned to the department's brake section. Except
for an occasional assignment to replace tires and batteries,
all her work consisted of repairing and replacing defective
brake systems (Gadberry Dep. 29). Sanders assigned brake
mechanic Eddie Gadberry ("Gadberry") to train Scott during her
first three months at Orland Park (because Gadberry was on
vacation when Scott first arrived, mechanic Dave Fraser
trained her during her first few weeks) (Findings ¶ 7).
Scott's training by Fraser and Gadberry consisted of her
working directly with them on their brake jobs (Gadberry Dep.
11). They would instruct her as they went along and then have
her try her hand at the work (Scott Cont. Dep. 37). After
three months of that in-service training, Scott was assigned
her own work. When she ran into problems she would ask
Gadberry and other mechanics for help (id. at 40). On at least
one occasion Sanders asked Gadberry to evaluate Scott's
performance (Gadberry Dep. 46).
Scott testified at her deposition that Gadberry trained her
adequately (Scott Dep. 22).*fn2 He was basically pleasant to
her, and she considered him her "friend" in the same way she
considered all the mechanics her friends (Scott Dep. 22).
Gadberry testified at his deposition he considered Scott a
competent, although somewhat slow, mechanic (Gadberry Dep.
32-33, 88) and that he gave her a favorable evaluation when
Sanders asked about her performance (Gadberry Dep. 46, 48).
2. Alleged Sexual Harassment
Scott nevertheless claims Gadberry and other mechanics
repeatedly sexually harassed her. Gadberry, the principal
alleged harasser, supposedly "propositioned" her repeatedly
(Scott Dep. 24, 29, Cont. Dep. 31). She said the other
mechanics "flirted" with her (id. at 21-22, 42, 45, 56).
When pressed at her deposition about the details of
Gadberry's alleged harassment, Scott clarified he had never
touched her, made a lewd comment to her or explicitly asked
her for sex (Scott Dep. 25-29). Scott said when she asked
Gadberry for help with a brake problem, he often asked in
reply "What will I get for this?" (Scott Dep. 25).*fn3 Scott
interprets that to be an "obvious" request for sex
(id.). There is no indication Gadberry ever refused to help
Scott for failure to get something in return.
Scott also said Gadberry would often "ask to take me out"
(id. at 21, 24, 28). She said he was no more specific than that
(id. at 28, 34). He did suggest taking her to the "Green
Grasshopper," a restaurant in the same mall as Sears where the
Sears automotive employees often gathered (id. at 29). Again
she interprets those requests as requests for sex (id. at 29):
He didn't come out and tell me he wanted sex. You
don't have to come out and say you want to have
sex with somebody, if you want to take them out
this is what it's going to lead to.
Beyond Gadberry's alleged "propositions," Scott claimed he
was generally suggestive" or had an "attitude" (id. at 35-36).
Again she could not specify any words or actions that were
suggestive beyond an occasional wink (id. at 35-38). Finally,
Scott testified Gadberry had once offered to "come over and
give me a rubdown" (id. at 26), although Scott had not
remembered this incident when she testified about sexual
harassment at a co-worker's trial (id. at 26-27).
As for other mechanics, Scott claimed they were always
"coming over to talk" to her (id. at 21-22), "trying to take me
out on dates or whatever the case may be" (id. at 56) or
flirting (id. at 42, 45). Here the only specific details Scott
could offer are that mechanic Al Williams once made a lewd
comment to her (id. at 41) and mechanic Winston Taylor once
"hit me on my buttock" (id. at 44). As a result of the
alleged harassment Scott found the work environment "very
uncomfortable" (id. at 52).
Scott never complained to any supervisory personnel about
any alleged sexual harassment (Scott Dep. 48-49, 69-70, Cont.
Dep. 32-33). She said she just assumed they were aware of it
(id.). She offered no evidence of their knowledge, asserting
only that the men in the shop were a close-knit group and must
have known what was happening (id.).
3. Scott's Work Performance
Sears imposes productivity requirements on its brake
mechanics. They are generally expected to perform three brake
jobs per day (Gadberry Dep. 35-37). Although brake mechanics
are rotated in and out of tire and battery work, they receive
less productivity credit for that type of work (Findings ¶ 15).
Scott claims Sanders and McDowell told her she would not be
required to meet the normal quota during her first nine months
(Scott Cont. Dep. 6, 10-11, 30). During that time she would
not be judged on productivity, but she should try to work up
to two or two-and-a-half brake jobs per day (id. at 6). Scott
testified that by the end of the nine-month period she had
achieved a rate of two brake jobs per day (Scott Dep. 49). She
admits she was warned in April 1981 that she would be
terminated unless she improved her productivity (Scott Cont.
On June 30, 1981 the CETA subsidy of Scott's wages was
terminated. On July 17, 1981 Scott was discharged along with
Arlene Otis ("Otis"), the only other female mechanic and the
only other mechanic in the CETA program. Scott claims McDowell
said when he fired her (Scott Dep. 59):
that he didn't want to pay a woman $7 an hour
when he could get a man to do three brake jobs
After Scott and Otis were fired no new employee was hired to
replace them. Their work was absorbed by the remaining
mechanics (Gadberry Dep. 56-57). Gadberry testified that after
Scott's and Otis' departure the per-mechanic workload was ...