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.

William C. Combs v. East Peoria Community High School District 309

July 13, 2011

WILLIAM C. COMBS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EAST PEORIA COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 309, AN ILLINOIS LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDADE United States Senior District Judge

E-FILED

Thursday, 14 July, 2011 02:41:40 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION & ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.13) and Defendant's Memorandum of Law (Doc. 14). Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) and Defendant's Reply (Doc. 16). For the following reasons, Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND*fn1

Plaintiff began teaching at the East Peoria Community High School as a social science teacher in 1998. (Doc. 8-1 at 1). He was subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement between Defendant and the East Peoria Community High School Education Association ("Association"). (Doc. 8-1 at 1). On September 5, 2006,the Association and Defendant entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" (hereinafter referred to as "Retirement Incentive Plan") that spelled out the terms of a retirement incentive applicable during the 2006 to 2012 school years. (Doc. 8-1 at 1-2). Plaintiff alleges that he had a conversation with Superintendent Cobert, regarding the Retirement Incentive Plan, in which Cobert made certain representations that compelled Plaintiff to retire. (Doc. 8-1 at 2).

Plaintiff tendered three letters of resignation dated April 11, 2006, August 1, 2006 and October 1, 2006 and which are identical except for a recitation of benefits Plaintiff expected to receive upon his retirement. (Doc. 8-1 at 2). Each of the letters indicated that the resignation would be effective December, 2007. (Doc. 8-1 at 2). The School Board only accepted the third letter of resignation. (Doc. 8-1 at 2). On November 6, 2007, Plaintiff attempted to rescind his resignation because he believed that Superintendent Cobert made material misrepresentations as to the benefits he would receive during retirement. (Doc. 8-1 at 2). Plaintiff also apparently believed that the Retirement Incentive Plan, as negotiated by his Union and Defendant discriminated against him on account of his age. (Doc. 8-1 at 2). Plaintiff's attempt to rescind his resignation was rejected, Superintendent Cobert drafted a letter on November 20, 2007, indicating that the School Board had already approved his resignation, that Plaintiff had already received the benefits provided under the Retirement Incentive Plan, and that the Board had already hired a replacement. (Doc. 8-1 at 2).

Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination on September 3, 2008 alleging that the latest discriminatory act was November 20, 2007. (Doc. 8-1 at 3). A Right to Sue letter was dated May 29, 2009. (Doc. 8-1 at 3). On June 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant. (Doc. 1). Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 4), and Memorandum in Support on September 12, 2009 (Doc. 5), arguing that Plaintiff's claim was time-barred. On September 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 7). In its Order and Opinion ruling upon Defendant's First Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court determined that Plaintiff's claim was "that he was discriminated against on account of his age with respect to retirement benefits and that the discrimination resulted in a decrease in his benefits and his constructive discharge." (Doc. 8-1 at 6-9).

This Court also found that the adverse employment action occurred on October 1, 2006 when Plaintiff tendered his last letter of resignation and that the claim accrued when Plaintiff became aware, or should have become aware, that he was injured. (Doc. 8-1 at 9). However, the Court was unable to determine based upon the record before it on what date this actually occurred. (Doc. 8-1 at 9). This Court ordered Defendant to answer the remaining aspects of Plaintiff's Complaint, which it did on March 5, 2010. (Doc. 9). On September 17, 2010, Defendant filed its Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) and Memorandum of Law (Doc.14). Plaintiff filed his Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 15), on October 4, 2010, to which Defendant filed a Reply on October 12, 2010. (Doc. 16).

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment should be granted where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This Court must "view the record and all inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the [non-moving party]." Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 425 (7th Cir. 1997). In doing so, this Court is not "required to draw every conceivable inference from the record -- only those inferences that are reasonable." Id. at 426. Therefore, if the record before the Court could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party," then no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Walters v. DHL Exp., 500 F.Supp.2d 1007, 1009 (C.D. Ill. 2007). However, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or resolve issues of fact; disputed facts must be left for resolution at trial. Id.

The only issue for determination is whether Plaintiff timely filed his claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). "An individual must have filed timely charges of discrimination with the EEOC in order to file a claim of discrimination" in federal court. EEOC v. North Gibson School Corp., 266 F.3d 607, 616 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Illinois is a deferral state for purposes of establishing the statutory period within which an employee must file an administrative charge of age discrimination, Plaintiff's charge had to be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of ...


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.