The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM J. HIBBLER, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Mary and John Valenti, husband and wife, sued the City of Chicago,
alleging several violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e, et seq. According to the Valentis, the Chicago
police department discriminated against Mary Valenti because of her gender
and retaliated against John Valenti for opposing the discriminatory work
environment. Mary Valenti raises claims for disparate impact, disparate
treatment, and hostile work environment.*fn1 The Defendant moves for
summary judgment. For the reasons noted herein, the Defendant's motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. Factual Background
Page 2
John Valenti joined the Chicago Police Department in 1981, and Mary
Valenti (for clarity and simplicity, the Court will refer to the two
Plaintiff's by their first names for the remainder of this opinion)
joined ten years later. After completing her training, Mary was assigned
to the 25th District, where she spent her entire career as a police
officer. Mary first worked as a patrol officer and occasionally worked at
the 25th District desk and in the female lockup. In 1998, Mary was
transferred to the 25th District's Community Policy Office (CPO) as a
Domestic Violence Officer. Although the shift to the CPO did not result
in an increase in salary or a promotion, Mary did enjoy more convenient
hours, working 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
When Mary began working in the CPO, Officers Evelyn Lampignano, John
Behnke, John Apel, Gladys Morales, Sharon Loni, Lucy O'Brien, Joseph
Graziano, and Jeff King were already assigned to the office. Sergeant
Albert Oseguera supervised the 25th District's CPO from August 1998 until
his retirement in January 2001. Sergeant Oseguera reported to Thomas
Walton, the Commander of the 25th District.
In September 1999, Oseguera called Mary into his office. In the office,
Oseguera described what he called "every man's" sexual fantasy to Mary,
providing a graphic description of a sexual relationship involving a man
and two women. Mary said nothing and Oseguera continued with his
inappropriate behavior, discussing his methods of meeting women while
drinking with his friends. Mary continued to remain silent, and Oseguera
continued the inappropriate discussion, Oseguera concluded his lewd
remarks by informing Mary that if she were not married, "[they] would be
dating." Mary did not respond to Oseguera's inappropriate comments and
left his
Page 3
office. After the September 1999 conversation, Mary attempted to
avoid being in the same area with Oseguera by herself.
Although the Chicago Police Department had a zero tolerance policy for
sexual harassment, Mary did not complain about Oseguera's behavior
because she feared that he might retaliate against her. Mary also did not
immediately tell her husband about Oseguera's improper comments. Instead,
Mary told several coworkers about Oseguera's remarks. It is clear,
however, that Mary was not the only officer in the CPO to believe that
Oseguera's managerial skills left much to be desired. Other officers
confirmed that they feared to criticize Oseguera's decisions for fear
that he might retaliate. Moreover, other officers confirmed that Oseguera
frequently made comments evidencing his belief that women should not be
part of the police force and also made patently offensive comments about
women. For example, Officer Loni testified that Oseguera frequently
voiced his opinion that women should not be on the police force.*fn2
Officer Graziano testified that Oseguera made other incendiary and
offensive comments about women: 1) that he stated the only thing women
are "good for is fuck them and run them;" 2) that he stated women are
"ruining the police
Page 4
department;" 3) that he frequently referred to women using offensive,
gender-specific derogatory names;*fn3 4) that he threatened to put women
back on the street; and 5) that he called Mary a "[pejorative]*fn4
because she's trying to do all this stuff here" and that "she thinks
she's going to outsmart me, you know. I'll just get rid of her."
In November 1999, Mary had a vacation (referred to by the department as
a furlough) scheduled from November 25 to December 6. Mary sought to
extend her furlough by using personal and compensatory days so that her
furlough would coincide with her husband's, which ran after December 6.
Oseguera denied her request to extend the furlough because Officer
Morales, the other CPO Domestic Violence Officer, had already requested a
furlough for those same dates. While Mary was on furlough, she learned
that Oseguera planned to reassign her from the CPO back to the watch,
where she might not work regular nine-to-five, Monday-Friday hours. Mary
called Oseguera at home to inquire whether she was being "dumped" from
the CPO. Oseguera explained that he recommended to the District Commander
that she return to the watch because he had heard that Mary was unhappy
with a recent change in the CPO hours and that her furlough extension was
denied. The conversation between Oseguera and Mary became heated as Mary
explained that she did not wish to be
Page 5
assigned to the watch but instead desired to remain in the CPO.*fn5
Despite Mary's objection to the transfer, Oseguera recommended that
Commander Walter transfer her and he did so.*fn6 Mary was not the only
officer who found herself transferred from the CPO during Oseguera's
tenure there: Officers Curry, Loni, and Morales (all women) also were
transferred
Mary's furlough was scheduled to end on December 17, 1999. But instead
of returning to work, Mary informed the Department she was going on the
medical roll because of stress, as directed by her psychiatrist, Dr.
Gustavo Hernandez. While Mary was on medical leave, she and John met with
Deputy Chief Byrne in December 1999 to discuss why Mary had been
reassigned to the watch. Mary failed to convince Byrne to return her to
the CPO. In February 2000, Mary received her performance evaluation for
the June 1999 to December 1999 period. In that evaluation, Oseguera
lowered Mary's efficiency rating from 99 to 96.5, noting that Mary needed
to work on
Page 6
her relationships with her superiors. Mary never returned to the
Department, and instead remained on medical leave. Chicago Police
Department regulations require that Mary undergo a fitness-for-duty
evaluation prior to returning to work.
On April 10, 2000, Commander Walton and Lieutenant Roy spoke with John
regarding allegations of sexual harassment. John told Commander Walton
about Mary's allegations regarding Oseguera. Walton responded by
instructing Roy to complete a confidential "complaint register," which is
the means in which a complaint is filed against a police officer. The
Internal Affairs Division (IAD) investigated Mary's allegation. Mary told
the investigator about the September 1999 incident and the general
remarks that Oseguera made about viagra and breast implants.
Shortly after John informed Commander Walton of Mary's allegations of
sexual harassment, six sergeants received transfers to IAD. Although John
had applied for a transfer in 1997, been interviewed in 1998, and been
recommended for a transfer in March 2000, he was not among the six
sergeants who received transfers to the IAD.
After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, the Valentis filed
this suit.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record, viewed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party shows 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); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party opposing summary
judgment must go beyond the pleadings and "set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc.,
Page 7
477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The role of this Court is to determine
"whether the evidence ...