Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Glass v. Illinois Dep't of Transportation

February 15, 2007


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge


I. Introduction and Background

Now before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 27). Specifically, Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff cannot make out her prima facie case of discrimination and she has not shown that Defendant's proffered reason for her employment decisions were pretextual. Plaintiff opposes the motion (Doc. 37). Based on the pleadings, the applicable and the following, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

On April 27, 2005, Kinyata Glass filed suit against her former employer, the Illinois Department of Transportation ("IDOT"), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act fo 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Doc. 1). Specifically, Glass alleges that IDOT discriminated against her on the basis of sex, race, and religion by not promoting her and created a hostile work environment for her. On September 6, 2005, the Court granted IDOT's motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice Glass' allegations regarding the hostile work environment, race and sex discrimination as those claims are not reasonably related to the claim contained in her EEOC charge*fn1 (Doc. 16).*fn2

Thereafter, IDOT moved for summary judgment (Doc. 27). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc. 37). In response, IDOT filed a reply (Doc. 38) and a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff's brief (Doc. 39). On January 19, 2007, the Court granted IDOT's motion to strike and stuck her claims that IDOT failed to reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs and that IDOT's safety policy had a disparate impact on Pentecostal women contained in her response in opposition to IDOT's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40).*fn3 The Court now turns to address the motion for summary judgment.

II. Facts

In January, 2002, IDOT hired Glass to a full-time position with the Construction Bureau.*fn4 Prior to taking a position with the Construction Bureau, Plaintiff was given a training booklet. In March, 2002, Glass informed IDOT that due to a change in her religious beliefs, she could no longer wear pants. Plaintiff followed up in writing on May 14, 2002 and attached a letter from her pastor indicating why she could no longer wear pants. Wearing a skirt or a dress to a construction site is a violation of IDOT's dress code and safety code.*fn5 Due to Plaintiff's inability to dress in conformance with IDOT's policies, Plaintiff was assigned to a position away from construction sites, effective June 24, 2002.*fn6 She first served in a temporary capacity in Fairview Heights, working with emergency patrol vehicles, fulfilling duties until another fill-time staff member was hired to take over the duties.

In November, 2002, Glass began working as an Engineering Technician I ("ETI") in the District 8 Headquaters in Collinsville, Illinois in the Operations Bureau under the supervision of Brian Sneed. Sneed assigned duties to Glass and evaluated her work performance from November 2002 to through December 2004. In August, 2003, Sneed evaluated Glass for the first time. This evaluation covered Glass' work performance from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003.

The July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 evaluation states as to overall performance level of employee: "Performance is unsatisfactory. Results do not achieve job requirements and expectations. Improvement is essential to justify retention in the position." (Doc. 27-4). This evaluation also indicates that Glass refused to sign her evaluation. (Doc. 27-4). In response to the evaluation, Glass filed a memorandum indicating that she disagrees with her supervisor's comments because she did her assigned duties satisfactorily and in a timely manner given the supervision she was given. After this evaluation, which Sneed found Glass' work unacceptable, Glass was given quarterly evaluations.

During her first quarter evaluation, Glass received a written reprimand for leaving her workstation and reading a magazine instead of monitoring the I-64 congestion and properly displaying messages to motorists as well as failing to notify supervisors of her need to leave the area during an emergency situation and deleting six emails from supervisors without reading them.

In January 2004, at the end of the second quarterly evaluation, Glass had been working as an ETI for the maximum 24 month period allowed by the union contract. Following the satisfactorily quarter evaluation, Glass was promoted to the position of ETII, effective January 16, 2004.*fn7 Due to her promotion, Glass acquired more duties during the third and fourth quarters of the evaluation period.

In August 2004, Glass saw a version of her evaluation that indicated that she was meeting her employers expectations for the period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. According to Sneed, the initial "meets expectations" rating was a mistake in that he did not take into consideration her promotion to ETII position in January 2004. Once he realized the mistake and reevaluated based on the ETII position, he gave Glass an unsatisfactory evaluation. Her job performance was unsatisfactory for the following reasons: (1) she demonstrated difficulty completing tasks successfully in their entirety when given to her orally; (2) many assignments still required corrections; and (3) when her tasks required engineering judgment, she had difficulty trusting her own engineering judgment and routinely asked for help. Glass was instructed to revise assignments, however, she takes issue with the claim that assignments required "multiple" revisions.

IDOT was under a hiring freeze from the time Glass graduated from college with a Bachelor's degree in May, 2003 to 2004. Two positions were filled on August 16, 2004 when two employees, Brad Williams and Sharon Byrd, were converted from Engineering Technician positions to Civil Engineer positions. At the time of these promotions, Glass did not have positive evaluations and had received two ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.