United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division
LISA R. WILSON, Plaintiff,
DAVID JONES, Defendant.
DARROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Plaintiff Lisa Wilson's Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 30; the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation as to Wilson's
motion, ECF No. 36; and Defendant David Jones's Motion
for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 49. For the reasons that
follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED,
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED, and Defendant's motion
2011, Wilson, who is African-American, has worked for the
City of Galesburg (“the City”) in the
“Handivan Division” of the City's Community
Development Department, which provides curbside
transportation for residents with special needs. Wilson's
position is classified as “Secretary I.” Her job
duties include clerical work and dispatch. As to the latter,
Wilson fields calls from Handivan passengers about when and
where they want to be picked up and relays this information
to the Handivan drivers. She does not provide turn-by-turn
guidance to the drivers, who are free to select their own
routes. Wilson Dep. 68:4-69:5, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, ECF No.
49-1 at 18-19 (“I would call out to the driver and let
them know that they have a passenger ready or there's
been a change to their schedule. But they take whatever route
they choose . . . I would just tell them, you have a
passenger ready at Cottage ER or Wal-Mart.”).
Handivan Division receives federal funding through the
Department of Transportation and, consequently, must comply
with applicable federal regulations. This includes
regulations promulgated by the Federal Transit Administration
(“FTA”) regarding prohibited alcohol and drug
use, which mandate drug and alcohol testing of transportation
employees responsible for safety-sensitive functions. 49
C.F.R. § 655.1. These functions include
“[c]ontrolling dispatch or movement of a revenue
service vehicle.” 49 C.F.R. § 655.4. The
City's Handivans are revenue service vehicles.
2012, Jones was hired by the City as the Human Resource and
Risk Manager. In this role, Jones was required to ensure the
City complied with all federal, state, and local laws and
regulations. He determined Wilson was the only Handivan
employee not in the pool subject to random drug testing. In
February 2014, Jones consulted Wilson, asking about her job
duties. She told Jones that she performed dispatch duties.
Wilson Mem. Mar. 12, 2014, Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B, ECF No. 49-2
(“I told him that I did clerical work and
dispatch.”). Thereafter, Jones determined that Wilson
should be in the drug testing pool. Other City employees
disagreed because, in years prior, the prevailing opinion was
that Wilson did not perform safety-sensitive functions
because she did not provide turn-by-turn guidance. In
addition, two audits in recent years had not found that the
Handivan Division was out of compliance with federal
regulations because Wilson was not in the drug testing pool.
being added to the drug testing pool, Wilson had to submit to
an initial drug test. She was informed that she would not
hear anything unless the result was positive. However, in
March 2014, Jones came to the Handivan office and informed
another Handivan employee, Allyson Andrews, who is also
African-American, of Wilson's results, which were
negative.Jones testified he mistook Andrews for
Wilson, Mot. Summ. J. Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 38,
though Wilson disputes this assertion, Resp. Disputed
Material Facts ¶ 38.
this time, Jones also made several racially offensive
statements to various City employees. With reference to
adding Wilson to the drug testing pool, Jones said to a
coworker: “Well, don't you think she should be
tested? She's black.” Main Dep. 16:1-2, Mem. Opp.
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. L, ECF No. 52-3. Jones also asked
Wilson's supervisor if she thought Wilson would pass the
test. Mannon Aff. ¶ 14, Mem. Opp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. N,
ECF No. 52-5. Jones testified he did not recall making either
of these statements. Jones Dep. 70:21-71:10, 78:18- 79:8,
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. C, ECF No. 49-3 at 19. Jones also told
Andrews that because there was another City employee besides
Wilson whose first name was “Lisa, ” he would
call Wilson “the black Lisa.” Andrews Aff.
¶¶ 9, 17, Mem. Opp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. M, ECF No.
January 2017, the City Council passed a new policy on drug
testing. This is the first iteration that lists the Handivan
Secretary I position as one subject to random drug testing.
Since its passage, Wilson has been selected for testing.
Jones is no longer employed by the City.
February 6, 2016, Wilson filed a two-count complaint against
the City and Jones. Compl., ECF No. 1. Jones was sued in his
official and individual capacities. Count One alleged a
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Count Two alleged
violations of Wilson's constitutional rights-it did not
specify which rights-pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No.
3. In her response, Wilson clarified her allegations: she
claims that the drug test violated her Fourth Amendment right
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; that her
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws
was violated by the City's “underutilization of
minorities, ” coupled with the application of the drug
test to her alone, and Jones's other alleged behavior;
and that her freedom to make and enforce contracts under
§ 1981 was impeded by the drug test and all of
Jones's workplace behavior.See Mem. Opp. Mot.
Dismiss 4-6, ECF No. 8.
Court granted Defendants' motion, dismissing all claims
against the City, which was terminated as a defendant.
See Order 9, ECF No. 10. The Court also dismissed
Wilson's claims against Jones in his official capacity,
as well as any freestanding § 1981 claim against him in
his individual capacity. Id. at 7-8. The claims that
went forward were those against Jones in his individual
capacity pursuant to § 1983, including a § 1981
claim, a Fourth Amendment claim, and a Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection claim. Id. at 8.
February 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley
entered a Rule 16 Scheduling Order, which set a March 19,
2017 deadline for amended pleadings for Wilson, and a March
20, 2017 deadline for Jones. See Feb. 17, 2017
Minute Entry (adopting the dates outlined in the Discovery
Plan, ECF No. 16). The Scheduling Order also set a discovery
deadline of January 17, 2018, and a dispositive motion
deadline of February 17, 2018. Id.
November 15, 2017, Wilson filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). Mot. Leave
Amend, ECF No. 30. In support, Wilson cites several
“substantial change[s] in the circumstances of the
parties”: in January 2017, the City adopted a new
policy on drug testing, which includes Wilson's position
among those subject to random drug testing; Wilson became
aware of the new policy when Jones asked her to sign it
thereafter; in April 2017, she was tested pursuant to the new
policy; also in April 2017, Jones resigned his position with
the City; and in May 2017, Jones's original attorney
withdrew and a new attorney was substituted in. Id.
at 1-2. Wilson also asserts that, as of the date of filing,
neither party had been deposed. Id. at 2. This
motion was referred to Judge Hawley pursuant to Rule 71, and
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No.
36, was entered December 7, 2017, recommending that the
motion be denied. Wilson timely filed an objection to the
R&R. Objection, ECF No. 39. Thereafter, Jones filed a
motion for summary judgment. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 49.
Motion for Leave to File ...