Andrews v. City of Chicago
836 F. Supp. 2d 696
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Frances Andrews sues the City of Chicago alleging ADA discrimination, FMLA interference, and retaliation.
- Andrews is wheelchair-bound and underwent physical therapy with the City’s permission multiple times weekly.
- She was employed since 1996 in various City departments, most recently as Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Buildings.
- In June 2007, Commissioner Rodriguez merged the Buildings and Construction and Permits departments and terminated Andrews and three other Deputy Commissioners.
- The City asserts the terminations were for efficiency/expense reasons, not performance, and retained two other Deputy Commissioners whose disability status is unknown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination—direct or indirect proof. | Andrews argues disability-based discrimination under direct or indirect theory. | City contends no direct evidence and no valid prima facie indirect case. | Plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment on either direct or indirect theory. |
| ADA retaliation claim. | Andrews identifies protected activity leading to retaliation. | No statutorily protected activity identified; claim abandoned. | Retaliation claim fails as a matter of law. |
| FMLA interference claim. | Andrews asserts denial or interference with FMLA rights. | Claim time-barred and lacks notice/benefit denial elements; theory unsupported by facts. | FMLA claim fails as frivolous/unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (establishes summary judgment standard and burden-shifting framework)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (highlights no genuine issue with speculative evidence permissible)
- Dickerson v. Board of Trustees of Community College Dist. No. 522, 657 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2011) (discrimination proof requires direct or indirect method; indirect requires prima facie case)
- Durkin v. City of Chicago, 341 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2003) (retaliation framework; protected activity requirement)
- Winsley v. Cook County, 563 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard in employment-discrimination context)
- Smith v. Hope School, 560 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2009) (FMLA interference elements require notice and denial of benefits; essential elements)
- Andrews v. City of Chicago, Not applicable (Not applicable) ( cited for general framework; (omitted)}]}} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }}})