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.

Hall v. T.J. Maxx of IL, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

August 6, 2014

CAMILLE HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
T.J. MAXX OF IL, LLC, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge.

In her amended complaint, Plaintiff Camille Hall alleges that Defendant T.J. Maxx of Illinois, LLC ("T.J. Maxx") wrongfully discharged her in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA"), 775 ILCS 5/2-102. Presently before us is T.J. Maxx's motion for summary judgment, alleging that Hall's claim fails as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed below, we grant T.J. Maxx's motion for summary judgment because we find that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that (1) Hall was discharged for reasons other than her gender and sexual orientation, namely, for violating T.J. Maxx's customer apprehension guidelines, and (2) similarly-situated individuals were not treated more favorably.

BACKGROUND[1]

In September 2007, Hall began working for a T.J. Maxx-related entity in California. (Def.'s SOF ¶ 7.) After she was transferred to T.J. Maxx of Illinois in Naperville in December 2008, she was employed as a lead loss prevention detective. ( Id. ) Hall's District Loss Prevention Manager and immediate supervisor was David Bell, who had interviewed Hall and offered her the position in Illinois. ( Id. ¶ 8.) Bell's immediate supervisor was Regional Loss Prevention Manager, Michael Friske. ( Id. ¶ 9.)

As a lead loss prevention detective, Hall was responsible for, among other things, observing and deterring shoplifting. ( Id. ¶ 10.) Hall understood that she was required to comply with the Shoplifter Apprehension Policy and the Expanded Guidelines and that she could be terminated if she failed to comply with these policies. ( Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) T.J. Maxx's Expanded Guidelines require that before any apprehension may be made of a customer entering a restroom or dressing room, a loss prevention detective must meet not only the first four elements of the Shoplifter Apprehension Policy, but also three additional elements of proof.

A. The first four elements of the Shoplifter Apprehension Policy:

1) Observe the subject enter the area/department before any merchandise is taken.
2) See the subject remove the merchandise from the rack or display and be able to identify the merchandise as T.J. Maxx merchandise.
3) Observe the subject conceal the merchandise or know where it is located.
4) Maintain constant, uninterrupted surveillance of the subject.

B. Three additional elements of proof:

5) The customer must have concealed 2 or more items on his/her person (i.e. in their pocket, handbag or concealed under their clothing, etc.)
6) A clear intent to steal must exist. A clear intent to steal includes:
a. The total concealment of the items on the person; and;
b. An additional overt action such as the removal of price tickets, EAS tags or packaging.
7) Maintain constant uninterrupted surveillance of the subject. The subject may be detained as he/she is preparing to enter the fitting room or ...

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.