United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
ORDER & OPINION
BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge.
matter before the Court is Defendant Sharon Healthcare Woods
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15). Plaintiff,
a pro se litigant, has repeatedly failed to respond to
Defendant's motion. For the following reasons,
Defendant's motion is granted and the case is dismissed.
facts come from Defendant's Statement of Facts (Doc. 17).
Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment. Therefore, all factual assertions alleged
by Defendant are deemed admitted. Wienco, Inc. v. Katahn
Assocs., 965 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1992); see
also CDIL-LR 7.1(D)(2).
is a network of supportive living, skilled nursing and
behavioral health facilities specializing in the care of
residents with serious mental illness. Defendant is located
in Peoria, Illinois. Bobby Ford was the Head Administrator of
Defendant's facility and Plaintiff's superior at the
time of Plaintiff's separation from Defendant's
October 1997, Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a
Certified Nursing Assistant. With Mr. Ford's support,
Plaintiff received several promotions, which ultimately
resulted in Plaintiff being promoted to Head Dietary Manager
2012 or 2013, Plaintiff's relationship with Mr. Ford
began to sour after he hired, and then subsequently fired,
Plaintiff's son. At that point, Mr. Ford began
reprimanding her for issues she considered trivial-such as
having a dirty kitchen and not properly managing her staff.
Plaintiff's prior supervisor, Laura Kneer, had also
expressed discontent with Plaintiff's cleanliness and
organization of the kitchen.
later 2012 and early 2013, Mr. Ford began noticing
deficiencies in Plaintiff's job performance. Mr. Ford
noted that Plaintiff had difficulties maintaining proper
boundaries with the staff she supervised, and had
difficulties with scheduling and keeping the kitchen properly
staff. In 2013, Mr. Ford began working with Plaintiff to
improve her performance, which including mentoring her and
implementing a checklist to help her. In June 2014, Mr. Ford
gave Plaintiff thirty days to make improvements to her
staffing and the cleanliness of her kitchen. In November
2014, there were multiple disruptions in the kitchen,
including a weekend where it was seriously understaffed. Mr.
Ford expressed his concerns with Plaintiff's management
of the kitchen.
15, 2015, Mr. Ford and another supervisor met with Plaintiff
to discuss her performance. At that meeting, Mr. Ford
informed Plaintiff that he wanted to move in a different
direction and that Plaintiff was not an effective leader.
Plaintiff interrupted, stood up, exclaimed she would never be
“good enough, ” and walked out of the meeting.
Mr. Ford then determined he wanted to terminate her.
Plaintiff was the only dietary manager and was replaced by a
time of Plaintiff's termination, she was earning $16.51
per hour. The average rate for a dietary manager was
approximately $15.00 per hour; however wages may vary based
on prior experience, education, certification, and tenure.
During her deposition, Plaintiff stated that she does not
have information regarding other dietary manager's
compensation or information to substantiate the claim that
male dietary managers were paid more. Additionally, she
explained that her claim was based on the fact that she once
saw the paycheck stub of her male predecessor and that he was
earning $17.00 per hour, but she did not know anything about
his prior experience, education, or tenure.
16, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint, alleging
that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her
sex and that Defendant violated the Equal Pay Act.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment nor did Plaintiff contest Defendant's
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts the following facts must be
deemed admitted by Plaintiff: neither Mr. Ford, nor any other
supervisor in Defendant's employment, has ever made a
disparaging comment about women or has distinguished
Plaintiff's gender as female, and Defendant does not have
policies or demonstrated patterns of practice that disparage
women or favor male employees. Additionally, Plaintiff stated
during her deposition that she does not have any support for
her allegations that female employees were treated
differently or that she was personally treated differently
because she is a woman.
judgment shall be granted where “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, the Court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. SMS Demag
Aktiengesellschaft v. Material Scis. Corp., 565 F.3d
365, 368 (7th Cir. 2009). All inferences drawn from the facts
must be construed in favor of the non-movant. Moore v.
Vital Prods., Inc., 641 F.3d 253, 256 (7th Cir. 2011).
However, the Court is “not required to draw ...