United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
LEE E. AMMONS, JR., Plaintiff,
THOMAS J. DART, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT BLAKEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lee Ammons sued his employer, Cook County Sheriff Thomas
Dart, and Cook County, alleging multiple discrimination
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e, et seq., and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all
claims. For the reasons explained below, this Court grants
facts come from Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 statement of
facts  and Plaintiff's statement of additional facts
. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' facts,
so this Court deems those facts admitted pursuant to Local
Rule 56.1. See Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 584
(N.D. Ill. 2000).
statement of facts  relies entirely upon his own
declaration  for support. Plaintiff filed this case in
August 2016 and never amended his complaint, , but his
declaration discusses-for the first time-events that happened
as late as June and November 2017, see 
¶¶ 5-9. Plaintiff may not amend his complaint at
summary judgment by raising new allegations for the first
time. See Trade Fin. Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573
F.3d 401, 412 (7th Cir. 2009); Griffin v. Potter,
356 F.3d 824, 830 (7th Cir. 2004). Thus, this Court
disregards paragraphs 5-9 of Plaintiff's statement of
facts and any corresponding arguments in Plaintiff's
response brief .
paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's declaration contradicts his
deposition. At his June 2017 deposition, Plaintiff testified
that Defendants failed to give him a replacement chair after
someone stole his ergonomic chair. [27-3] at 8. But in his
undated declaration (filed in January 2018), Plaintiff now
says that Defendants gave him a “purported replacement
ergonomic chair, ” but the replacement “was too
small to safely and comfortably fit me.”  ¶ 3.
Both statements contradict Defendants' statement, deemed
admitted, that they offered Plaintiff another ergonomic
chair, but he did not like that chair because it lacked arms.
 ¶ 11.
like Plaintiff's, though signed under oath, typically
represent a lawyer's work product; thus, when offered to
contradict the declarant's prior sworn testimony, they
“are so lacking in credibility as to be entitled to
zero weight in summary judgment proceedings unless the
affiant gives a plausible explanation for the
discrepancy.” Beckel v. Wal-Mart Assocs.,
Inc., 301 F.3d 621, 623 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff
offers no such explanation for the discrepancy between his
testimony and his declaration, and the declaration appears
designed to manufacture an issue of fact about whether the
replacement chair met Plaintiff's needs. See Bank of
Ill. v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d
1162, 1168 (7th Cir. 1996). Thus, this Court disregards
paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's declaration and any
corresponding arguments. See Beckel, 301 F.3d at
an African-American man, works for the Cook County
Sheriff's Office as a correctional officer.  ¶
1. Plaintiff kept his job as a correctional officer at his
regular salary throughout the events described here.
Id. ¶ 5. His current posting in Division Four
of the Cook County Jail requires him to maintain order and
security near the classrooms where detainees attend school.
Id. ¶ 19.
suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure. Id.
¶ 6. In early 2015, he and the Sheriff's HR
Department engaged in the interactive process required under
the ADA. Id. ¶ 7. The Sheriff's Office
agreed to the following accommodations for Plaintiff in April
2015: no prolonged standing, no lifting over twenty-five
pounds, close proximity to a bathroom and refrigerator, and
an ergonomic chair. Id. ¶ 8. The Sherriff's
Office renewed those accommodations in January 2016, and also
said that Plaintiff could bring insulin, needles, and
glucose-testing supplies to work in a cooler. Id.
originally requested a refrigerator to keep his insulin cool
during the day. Id. ¶ 15. In June 2015, the
Sheriff's Office gave him a cooling bag to store the
insulin, but Plaintiff said that he did not want a cooling
bag because it leaked and he found it inconvenient.
Id. ¶ 16. Instead, Plaintiff chose to share a
refrigerator with the employee who occupied the office next
to his post. Id. ¶ 17.
does not like to inject insulin in front of his coworkers.
Id. ¶ 12. In January or February 2016,
Plaintiff's supervisor, Sergeant Milton, prevented
Plaintiff from taking his insulin shots on time twice in one
day. Id. ¶ 18. The record does not indicate how
Milton did this, or that Plaintiff suffered any medical harm
from taking the shots late. See Id. On a couple
occasions, Milton purportedly made fun of Plaintiff by
telling him, in front of detainees: “Go take your
medicine.” Id. ¶ 21.
February 2016, the Sheriff's Office promised Plaintiff
that it would make a locked washroom available for him to
administer his shots. Id. Plaintiff requested a
“private bathroom.” Id. The
Sheriff's Office moved Plaintiff to an assignment within
three or four steps of a bathroom that has a lock on the
outer door and on each stall door. Id. ¶¶
exact timing remains unclear, but at some point after the
Sheriff's Office gave Plaintiff an ergonomic chair,
someone on the midnight shift took the chair. Id.
¶ 11. Plaintiff's supervisors returned the chair to
him, but it now tilted to the right due to damage.
Id. Rebecca Rierson, who handles ADA issues for the
Sheriff's Office, offered Plaintiff another ergonomic
chair; he did not like that chair, however, because it lacked
Title VII Background
January 2015, a white coworker, Deputy Cuddy, used the N-word
in Plaintiff's presence three times over four days.
Id. ¶ 23. Around the same time (neither party
specifies exactly when), another white coworker, Deputy
Cordoba, squeezed Plaintiff's chest on three occasions.
Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff complained to supervisors,
and the Sheriff's Office moved him to Division ...