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.

Hill v. Village of Franklin Park

September 5, 2008

LARA HILL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VILLAGE OF FRANKLIN PARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Joan H. Lefkow

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

Lara Hill brings this action alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other allegations. Hill's complaint contains five counts, but only Count I is relevant here. Count I alleges that the Village of Franklin Park ("Franklin Park") and Norcomm Public Safety Communications, Inc. ("Norcomm") discriminated against and harassed Hill on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII.

Before the court is Franklin Park's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which Franklin Park seeks dismissal of Hill's sexual harassment claim against it in Count I.*fn1 For the following reasons, Franklin Park's motion [#103] will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Hill's employment with Franklin Park began in 1994 at its police department. She worked there as a patrol officer, a School Liaison Officer ("SLO"), a field training officer, an evidence technician, and a member of the Tactical Unit. Hill's employment at Norcomm, which operates the 911 call center for Franklin Park, began in 2001. She worked there as a part-time dispatcher.

On June 30, 2006, Hill filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") a charge of sex discrimination, No. 440-2006-07366,*fn2 against Franklin Park. On the form, Hill marked the box indicating that she was alleging discrimination based on sex. She also stated on the form that the discrimination began on May 19, 2006 and that it was ongoing as of the date she filed the charge. In full, Hill's charge states as follows:

I began my employment with Respondent in October 1994, and my current position is Law Enforcement Officer. On or about May 19, 2006, Respondent made an exception to the normal practice of not allowing officers to work an overtime detail which starts before the end of their regular shift for a male co-worker but refused to make this same exception for me. On June 19, 2006, Respondent informed me that I would no longer receive specialty pay for my position and denied it to me retroactively from May 2004 to May 2005. On June 24, 2006 and again on or about June 26, 2006, instead of calling me, Respondent called in a less senior officer to work overtime to assist in an investigation. On June 28, 2006, Respondent informed me that I would be re-assigned from Investigations to Patrol, effective July 9, 2006.

I believe that I have been discriminated against based on my sex, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Pl.'s Compl., Ex. A.

Hill alleges that after she filed this charge, Franklin Park committed numerous acts of sex discrimination against her,*fn3 and that Norcomm also began committing discriminatory acts. On March 6, 2007, Hill filed two additional charges with the EEOC: (1) No. 440-2007-03534, a charge of discrimination and retaliation against Norcomm Public Safety Communication, Inc., and (2) No. 440-2007-03535, a charge of retaliation against Franklin Park.

On December 11, 2007, Hill filed an amendment to her initial charge against Franklin

Park, No. 440-2006-07366. In her amended charge, she states as follows:

1. Within the last 300 days and on a continuing and ongoing basis, Respondent has engaged [in] systemic and ongoing discrimination against me on account of my sex (female). Respondent has also retaliated against me for complaining about the unlawful conduct.

2. I was hired by Respondent on or about October 3, 1994 as a patrol officer.

3. On a continuing and ongoing basis Respondent discriminated against me based on my gender and retaliated against me in 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.