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.

Delgado v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

February 7, 2008

REFUGIO DELGADO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, DEFENDANT.



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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Refugio Delgado brought a four-count Complaint against his present employer Defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago (the "Board') alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., as well as age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and reverse gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.*fn1 Delgado bases his claims on the Board's failure to re-hire or transfer him to Arnold Mireles Elementary Academy. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1 Statements

Because Delgado is a pro se litigant, the Board served him with a "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment" as required by Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.2. The notice explains the consequences of failing to properly respond to a motion for summary judgment and statement of material facts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and Local Rule 56.1.

When determining summary judgment motions, the Court derives the background facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements. Local Rule 56.1 assists the Court by "organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence." Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000). Specifically, Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue." Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) requires the nonmoving party to admit or deny every factual statement proffered by the moving party and to concisely designate any material facts that establish a genuine dispute for trial. See Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005). The parties' statements must contain short numbered paragraphs including references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials. See id.; see also Ammons, 368 F.3d at 817.

The purpose of Rule 56.1 statements is to identify the relevant evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments. See Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006). The types of evidentiary material available to support Local Rule 56.1 statements are numerous, but the most common materials include affidavits, deposition transcripts, and business documents. Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 584 (N.D. Ill. 2000). In addition, "hearsay is inadmissible in summary judgment proceedings to the same extent that it is inadmissible in a trial." Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp., 113 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 1997); see, e.g., Keri v. Board of Tr. of Purdue Univ., 458 F.3d 620, 630 (7th Cir. 2006).

A litigant's failure to respond to a Local Rule 56.1 statement results in the Court admitting the uncontroverted statement as true. Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court may disregard statements and responses that do not properly cite to the record. See Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., L.L.C. 401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005); Brasic v. Heinemann's Inc., 121 F.3d 281, 284 (7th Cir. 1997). The requirements for responses under Local Rule 56.1 are "not satisfied by evasive denials that do not fairly meet the substance of the material facts asserted." Bordelon, 233 F.3d at 528.

Although courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally, see Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 681 (7th Cir. 2006), a plaintiff's pro se status does not absolve him from complying with these Local Rules. See Greer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 267 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001); see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) ("we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.") With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the relevant facts of this case.

II. Relevant Facts

Plaintiff Refugio Delgado presently works for the Board as a substitute teacher. (R. 21-1, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 2.) Delgado is licensed to teach Elementary School grades K-9 and has an endorsement in Social Science for Middle School grades. (R. 39-1, Pls.' Resp. Stmt. Facts ¶ 2.) Delgado was born on October 3, 1965, and filed the relevant EEOC Charge of Discrimination in this matter on April 27, 2006.*fn2 (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 3.) The EEOC issued Delgado's Notice of Right to Sue letter on December 6, 2006. (R. 1-1, Compl. ¶ 8(b).)

Principal Slater was the principal at Gillespie Elementary School during the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 5.) During the 2004-05 school year, Principal Slater recommended that the Board hire Delgado as a teacher for Gillespie Elementary School for a one-year term. (Id. ¶ 6.) Delgado, who is not a tenured teacher, taught at Gillespie Elementary School for one year. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 45.) In fact, the record reveals that Delgado was a probationary teacher at Gillespie Elementary School. (Id. ¶ 1; Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. Facts, Ex. 22A.) Meanwhile, during the 2004-05 school year, Principal Slater recommended to the Department of Human Resources not to renew Delgado's appointment as a probationary teacher at Gillespie Elementary School for the 2005-06 school year. (Id. ¶ 7.) Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Board of Education, Arne Duncan, sent a letter to Delgado dated May 13, 2005, informing him that the Board was not renewing his appointment to teach at Gillespie Elementary School for the 2005-06 school year. (Id. ¶ 10.)

Prior to working at Gillespie Elementary School, Delgado taught at Arnold Mireles Elementary Academy (formerly called Phil Sheridan School), which is also a Chicago Public School. (Pls.' Resp. Stmt. Facts ¶ 1.) During his time at Gillespie Elementary School, Delgado wanted to be transferred back to Arnold Mireles Elementary Academy. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 34; Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 33.) Principal Slater, however, never received a transfer form from Delgado. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 34.) In addition, the Department of Human Resources does not have a record of Delgado's transfer request. (Id. ¶ 51.) Nevertheless, Delgado contends that he informed the ...


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.