The opinion of the court was delivered by: RONALD GUZMAN, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Barry S. Baker, proceeding pro se, has sued Pactiv
Corporation ("Pactiv") for its alleged violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e,
et seq. Pactiv has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("Rule") 56 for summary judgment. For the reasons set
forth below, the motion is granted.
Though he received instructions on how to comply with Local
Rule 56.1 and the consequences of not doing so, (see Notice to
Pro Se Litigant Opposing Summary Judgment), plaintiff did not
file a response to Pactiv's LR 56.1(a) Statement. That omission
is costly: "All material facts set forth in the statement
required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless
controverted by the statement of the opposing party." N.D.ILL. LR
56.1(b)(3)(B); see Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi.,
385 F.3d 1104, 1109 (7th Cir. 2004) ("We have emphasized the
importance of local rules and have consistently and repeatedly
upheld a district's court's discretion to require strict
compliance with its local rules governing summary judgment.")
(alteration and quotation omitted). Because plaintiff has admitted all of the properly supported facts submitted by
Pactiv, the following is taken entirely from Pactiv's statement
of facts.
Pactiv, formerly Tenneco Packaging ("Tenneco"), is a packaging
corporation that does business in Illinois. (Def's. LR 56.1(a)
Stmt. ¶¶ 2, 5.) Baker worked for Tenneco/Pactiv from 1999 until
April 2004. (Def.'s App. Evid. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C, Baker
Dep. at 9, 16.)
On September 26, 2003, Rebekah Clark, Pactiv's IT*fn1
manager, told Rick Harris, Pactiv's Director of Corporate
Employee Relations, Compliance and Diversity, that Nelsie Cortes
said plaintiff had engaged in sexual conduct toward her. (Id.,
Ex. B, Harris Decl. ¶ 5.) Harris immediately investigated Cortes'
allegations by interviewing plaintiff, Cortes and two other
Pactiv employees, Sue Tauler and Sarah Bowen. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Cortes alleged that during the summer of 2003, plaintiff asked
her to go to a festival, telephoned her while he was on vacation
and asked her what she was eating for lunch and gave her a
T-shirt that said "Virginia is for Lovers." (Id. ¶ 7.) Cortes
also said that she had received an anonymous love letter on her
desk, which she attributed to plaintiff, and an e-mail from
plaintiff asking her to check whether he had a fever. (Id.)
When Cortes did not respond to plaintiff's e-mail request,
plaintiff confronted her to ask why. (Id.) Cortes also
complained that plaintiff frequently visited her cubicle. (Id.)
Bowen also said that plaintiff frequented Cortes' work area and
bought Cortes a T-shirt sporting the phrase "Virginia is for
Lovers." (Id. ¶ 8.) In addition, Bowen made some complaints of
her own: that plaintiff stared at her, left candy on her desk and
asked to leave personal items on her desk when he went to the
restroom. (Id.) During Harris' investigation, plaintiff signed a statement in
which he admitted: (1) calling Cortes while he was on vacation to
inquire about her lunch; (2) buying Cortes and other employees
T-shirts that said "Virginia is for Lovers"; (3) asking Cortes to
check whether he had a fever; and (4) visiting Cortes at her
cubicle. (Id., Ex. C, Baker Dep. at 59-60; id., Ex. D, Baker
Dep. Ex. 4, 10/28/03 Baker Stmt. ¶¶ 6, 8, 10-11.) Baker denied
staring at Bowen. (Id., Ex. D, Baker Dep. Ex. 4, 10/28/03 Baker
Stmt. ¶ 14.)
Harris finished his investigation around October 22, 2003 and
concluded that plaintiff's actions made female employees
uncomfortable. (Id., Ex. B, Harris Decl. ¶ 10.) As a result,
Harris reviewed Pactiv's sexual harassment policy with plaintiff
and instructed him to keep the matter confidential. (Id.)
Harris did not, however, conclusively determine that plaintiff
violated the policy. (Id.) Thus, he did not discipline
plaintiff in any way or place anything in his personnel file
regarding the allegations. (Id.)
The next day, Clark e-mailed Harris to tell him that plaintiff
was discussing the alleged victims' allegations with other
employees. (Id. ¶ 11.) As a result, Harris scheduled another
meeting with plaintiff. (Id.)
On October 27, 2003, plaintiff sent Harris an e-mail, which
said that Cortes was also discussing the allegations and
spreading rumors about plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 12.)
On October 28, 2003, Harris met with plaintiff and his
supervisor, Julius Riles. (Id. ¶ 13; id., Ex. C, Baker Dep.
17-18.) During the meeting, Harris reiterated that plaintiff had
to keep the allegations and investigation confidential and told
him that his discussions about the incident could be viewed as
retaliation against the alleged victims. (Id., Ex. B, Harris
Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff assured Harris that he would stop
discussing the matter and asked Harris to instruct the accusers
to do the same. (Id.) Pursuant to plaintiff's request, Harris met with
all of the parties involved and reminded them not to discuss the
matter with anyone. (Id. ¶ 14.)
When a Pactiv employee is disciplined, the record of such
discipline is placed in the employee's personnel file. (Id. ¶
15.) There is no letter or other record of discipline in
plaintiff's personnel file regarding the allegations ...