Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Storey v. City of Chicago

March 12, 2007

SHIRLEY STOREY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amy J. St. Eve, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se*fn1 Plaintiff Shirley Storey filed the present one-count First Amended Complaint against her employer Defendant City of Chicago alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. Before the Court is the City's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, the Court grants the City's motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural Background

During the relevant time-period, the City employed Storey, who is African-American, in the position of Clerk III for the Chicago Police Department ("CPD"). (R. 63-1, Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 2; R. 72-1, Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 2.) On September 21, 2004, Storey filed her first discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") based on alleged race discrimination. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 3, 4.) The EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter dated September 27, 2004. (Id. ¶ 5.) On November 15, 2004, Storey filed the present action against the City alleging disability discrimination in violation of the ADA. (Id. ¶ 6.) The City filed a motion to dismiss Storey's complaint because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to her ADA claim. (Id.) Thereafter, the Court granted Storey leave to file an amended complaint after which Storey filed a second EEOC charge alleging disability discrimination*fn2 . (Id.; R. 25-1.)

In her First Amended Complaint, Storey alleges that the City forced her to take medical leave from July 13, 2004 to September 15, 2004 and from September 20, 2004 to August 1, 2005, and that "her disability, her record of having such a disability, or that City of Chicago regarded her as being disabled, were motivating factors in City of Chicago's employment decisions." (Id. ¶ 7.) Storey further alleges that "[s]ince August 1, 2005, the Chicago Police Department has further harassed Ms. Storey based upon her record of disability or regarding her as disabled by its failure to return her to a comparable position and otherwise forcing her to undertake medical examinations." (Id.) Storey's First Amended Complaint does not contain allegations of race discrimination. (R. 29-1, First Amend. Compl ¶¶ 1, 6-8.)

II. Storey's Employment with the Chicago Police Department

In 1997, Storey started worked for the Chicago Police Department ("CPD") in the Juvenile Advocacy Section. (Id. ¶ 10.) She was one of three individuals assigned to the Juvenile Advocacy Section who performed clerical duties. (Id.) Storey's duties included typing and filing "Juvenile Control Cards," among other tasks. (Id. ¶ 11.) In December 2003, many of Storey's work responsibilities were eliminated because different employees were entering the information on the Juvenile Control Cards into a database, and, consequently, the CPD stored this information electronically. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Maria Sierra, a civilian, was Storey's supervisor and reported to Sergeant Kevin Fahey, who oversaw the Juvenile Advocacy Center. (Id. ¶ 11.) In May or June 2004, a clerk in the Missing Persons Section retired, and thus Sierra began to assign the clerks in the Juvenile Advocacy Center the task of filing cards known as "Missing Persons Control Cards," which were smaller in size than the Juvenile Control Cards. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 14.) Storey did not think that filing the Missing Persons Control Cards was part of her job. (Id. ¶ 14.) Moreover, Storey believed that the person who had previously filed the Missing Persons Cards had a higher pay grade than Storey and was white. (Id. ¶ 15.) Although Storey admitted that most of her job duties had been eliminated, she testified at her deposition that "[i]t was not my job for them to go to other departments and get work and bring to me to do." (Id.)

III. Storey's Allegations of Discrimination

Storey testified at her deposition that on July 2, 2004, she asked Sierra how much longer they would be filing the Missing Persons Cards and that the smaller cards hurt her fingers. (Id. ¶ 17; Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 17.) Storey further testified that Sierra responded that Storey should find another job to which Storey told Sierra that she should find another job. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 17; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 17.) Before July 2, 2004, Storey never mentioned to Sierra that filing these smaller cards made her neck and fingers sore. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 17.)

After her encounter with Sierra, Storey went to Sergeant Fahey's office and explained the incident. (Id. ¶ 18.) Sergeant Fahey responded by telling Storey that Sierra was her boss, to which Storey responded, "Maria was not my boss." (Id.) Storey further testified that she believed Sergeant Fahey discriminated against her because "[h]e did not care what was going on" and "[h]e just wanted me to know that no matter what was going on, I have no opinion." (Id. ¶ 19.) In addition, Storey testified that she asked Sergeant Fahey if he had ever heard of racial discrimination. (Id. ¶ 18.)

On that same day, Storey wrote a letter entitled "To whom it may concern" in which she complained about Sierra, including that Sierra assigned filing tasks from the Missing Persons Unit to the clerks in the Juvenile Advocacy Section and that it was unnecessary. (Id. ΒΆ 20.) Storey also complained that Sergeant Fahey just walked around, socialized, and went downstairs to take cigarette breaks. (Id.) Also in her letter, Storey recounted her conversation with Sergeant Fahey about racial discrimination stating that she wanted him to know that she knew what they were trying to do by giving ...


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.