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.

Michael E. Mckinzy, Sr v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.

September 27, 2012

MICHAEL E. MCKINZY, SR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO., D/B/A CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILROAD, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

For the stated herein, Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Illinois Central Railroad Company (the "Defendant") operates and maintains a railroad. In August 2009, pro se Plaintiff Michael McKinzy (the "Plaintiff") submitted an application for an open locomotive electrician position at Defendant's Woodcrest shop in Homewood, Illinois. In August 2009, Defendant invited Plaintiff for an interview in Homewood. Defendant alleges that approximately sixteen other candidates were interviewed the same day as Plaintiff for various positions at the Woodcrest shop. Angela Lee ("Lee"), one of Defendant's recruiters, interviewed Plaintiff. Shortly after the interview, Lee extended a conditional offer of employment to Plaintiff for a locomotive electrician position, which Plaintiff accepted. (Around this time, Defendant alleges that it extended approximately ten other conditional offers to individuals for various positions at the Woodcrest shop.)

On August 21, 2009, Defendant's upper management issued a directive stating that it planned to close and relocate the Woodcrest shop. As a result, the directive instructed recruiters to freeze all hiring for the Defendant's Woodcrest shop and rescind all outstanding conditional offers of employment. Shortly thereafter, Lee contacted all ten individuals (including Plaintiff) who received conditional offers for Woodcrest and notified them that their conditional offers had been rescinded due to a hiring freeze. Defendant alleges that of those individuals whose offers were rescinded, at least three were African-American, at least one was Hispanic, and at least four were Caucasian. Defendant also maintains that after August 21, 2009, it did not hire a single locomotive electrician for its Woodcrest Shop until 2011.

At some point after Defendant rescinded Plaintiff's offer of employment, Plaintiff filed an action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") alleging that Defendant rescinded Plaintiff's offer due to Plaintiff's race. On April 29, 2010, the EEOC disposed of Plaintiff's action issuing him a Right-To-Sue letter. (This was not the first filing Plaintiff made with the EEOC against Defendant. Plaintiff had also filed actions against Defendant in or around November 2007, April 2008, and October 2009 alleging race discrimination.)

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint against Defendant in this Court. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant retaliated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 when Defendant learned of Plaintiff's previously filed charges against Defendant. Defendant now moves for summary judgment alleging that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).

A dispute is "genuine" if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. A dispute is material if it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, the non-movant must present facts to show a genuine dispute exists to avoid summary judgment. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323--24 (1986). The Court construes all facts and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 2677 (2009). To establish a genuine issue of fact, the non-moving party "must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as the material facts." Sarver v. Experian Info. Sys., 390 F.3d 969, 970 (7th Cir. 2004).

If a party asserts that a fact cannot be, or is genuinely disputed, it must support that assertion with citations to materials in the record. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1). Such cited materials must be served and filed. N.D. Ill. R. 56.1. A court need only consider cited materials, but it is within the court's discretion to consider the entire record. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3).

If a party fails to support an assertion, the court may consider the fact undisputed, and grant summary judgment if the record supports it, or issue any other ...


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.