The opinion of the court was delivered by: John W. Darrah, United States District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Anna Hall ("Hall") filed a one-count Second-Amended Complaint
against Defendant City of Chicago ("the City") for sex discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as
amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (2A.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56.
For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); Patel v. Allstate Insurance Co., 105 F.3d 365, 367
(7th Cir. 1997). The movant bears the initial burden of establishing that
the record presents no genuine issue of material fact. Essex v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., 111 F.3d 1304, 1308 (7th Cir. 1997). Then the
burden shifts to the non-moving party to "set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e).
The nonmovant cannot succeed in creating a factual dispute solely by
resting on allegations in the pleadings but must produce evidence showing
there is a disputed issue for trial. Selan v. Kiley, 969 F.2d 560, 564
(7th Cir. 1992). In order to withstand summary judgment, the non-moving
party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt
as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec, Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586(1986). Only genuine disputes over facts that
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
properly preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242,
Considering the undisputed facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1(a) &
(b) statements of material facts (referred to herein as "Pl.'s 56.1" and
"Def.'s 56.1") and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in
Plaintiff's favor, the facts, for purposes of resolving the summary
judgment motion, are as follows.*fn1
On May 9, 1994, Plaintiff Anna Hall received her plumbing license,
after successfully passing the plumbing examination. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶
4). She had worked as an apprentice plumber for five years before taking
the test. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 6). Plaintiff began working for the City of
Chicago Department of Water as a plumber on August 16, 1995. (Def's 56.1
¶ 13). Since May, 1997, Plaintiff has been employed as a plumber at
the Department's Bureau of Water Pipe Distribution for the South
District. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 14).
Richard Green is the General Superintendent in charge of the South
District. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 36). Reporting to him is District
Superintendent Mulbe Dillard, Sr. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 36). Assistant
District Superintendent Flenory Barnes reports to Dillard. (Def.'s 56.1
¶ 36). Four District Foremen report to Barnes. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶
Acting foremen are individuals designated to assume the role and
responsibilities of a foreman when there is a vacancy within a District
and a pressing need to have it filled. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 27). The
General Superintendents of the Districts are responsible for selecting
individuals that they deem to be qualified to take the position. (Def.'s
56.1 ¶ 27). There is no formal application process for the position
of acting foreman. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 21, 22). Often, friends of the
supervisors are named to be acting foremen. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 21, 22).
Plaintiff has never been named to be an acting foreman. (Pl.'s 56.1
Each candidate is interviewed by one or more individuals who usually
hold supervisory positions within the Water Department. (Def.'s 56.1
¶ 42). The interviewers do not see the personnel file of any
applicant at any time. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 43). Each applicant is
interviewed separately. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 44). Each interviewer is
responsible for documenting his or her assessment of a candidate's
qualifications. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 46). The interviewers rank the
candidates in different categories, assigning scores of 1 to 5. (Def.'s
56.1 ¶ 46). Using a formula explained on the ratings sheets, the
rankings are totaled to attain a composite score. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶
46). There is an additional form entitled, "Interviewer's Evaluation of
Applicant." (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 46). It provides space for the interviewer
to insert handwritten comments about the candidate's previous work
experience. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 46). The interviewer also circles one of
three categories describing the candidate as "below requirements," "meets
requirements," or "exceeds requirements." (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 36). After
the interviews are concluded, a document is generated by the Bureau
secretary listing all applicants who were interviewed for the position
and their respective overall ratings. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 47). The
Commissioner of the Department generally approves hiring the candidate
with the highest overall rating score without conducting any independent
review of that candidate's qualifications. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 50).
Plaintiff's Interview Experiences
In August of 1997, Plaintiff submitted a bid application for a District
Foreman of Water Pipe Construction position. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 52). No
interviews were conducted. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 52). On or about December
8, 1997, Plaintiff was notified by letter that the position would not be
filled. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 52).
In August of 1997, Plaintiff submitted a bid application for a Plumbing
Inspector position in the Department of Water. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 53).
No interviews were conducted. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 53). On or about
December 12, 1997, Plaintiff was notified by letter that the position
would not be filled. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 53).
In January of 1998, Plaintiff submitted a bid application for a Foreman
of Water Pipe Construction position. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 54).
Thereafter, the bid was canceled. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 54). On or about
January 29, 1998, Plaintiff was notified by letter that no ...