872 F.3d 545
7th Cir.2017Background
- Michelle Frakes was a tenured special education teacher at Peoria School District No. 150 from 2002–2012, assigned to a Day Treatment Program for students with IEPs and BIPs.
- In Feb. 2012 her supervisor, Carolyn Nunn, rated her “unsatisfactory,” citing poor classroom management, lack of preparation, inadequate data collection, and tardiness; Frakes refused to sign and submitted a written rebuttal admitting some deficiencies but defending her methods.
- Because of the unsatisfactory rating, Illinois law placed Frakes on a dismissal sequence; Peoria dismissed her in a voluntary reduction in force in April 2012.
- Frakes filed a state-court wrongful termination suit (defeated on summary judgment) and a federal suit alleging that the unsatisfactory evaluation and dismissal interfered with students’ rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (analogous to ADA standards).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the school, finding Frakes had not engaged in Section 504-protected activity; the district court enforced its local summary-judgment briefing rule against Frakes for noncompliance.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed: it upheld the district court’s local-rule enforcement and held Frakes produced no evidence she opposed disability discrimination or otherwise engaged in protected activity under Section 504; it also rejected the school’s res judicata defense as waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frakes engaged in statutorily protected activity under Section 504/ADA anti-interference provision | Frakes contends her refusal to change teaching methods after the evaluation amounted to protected activity because her methods were better for disabled students | Peoria contends the dispute was about job performance, not an assertion of students’ statutory rights | Held for defendant: teaching-method dispute is not protected activity absent a challenge asserting students’ ADA/Section 504 rights |
| Whether district court properly enforced Local Rule 7.1(D) in considering summary-judgment evidence | Frakes argued the court wrongly ignored her supplemental explanations and violated Rule 56 | Peoria argued the court properly deemed uncompliant factual responses admitted under its local rule | Held for defendant: no abuse of discretion in enforcing the local rule; counsel’s repeated, willful noncompliance justified deeming facts admitted |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the Section 504 interference claim | Frakes argued there were disputed material facts about whether her methods related to protected activity | Peoria argued there was no evidence Frakes opposed disability discrimination or aided students in exercising Section 504 rights | Held for defendant: on the merits, Frakes failed to show she engaged in protected activity, so summary judgment was proper |
| Whether the federal suit was barred by res judicata due to related state-court proceedings | Frakes argued the federal claim was distinct and not precluded | Peoria argued claim splitting/res judicata barred the federal suit | Held for plaintiff: Peoria waived res judicata by delaying the defense over a year and a half; res judicata not applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C., Ltd. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., 800 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2015) (district courts have discretion in applying local rules)
- Friend v. Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist., 789 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for enforcement of local rules)
- CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standards and construing facts for nonmovant)
- Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (framework for interference claims under statutes like the FHA applied by analogy)
- Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying FHA interference standard to ADA interference claims)
- Yancick v. Hanna Steel Corp., 653 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court application of local rules; distinction between substantive and form violations)
- Lawler v. Peoria Sch. Dist. No. 150, 837 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussing claim splitting and res judicata in related school-district litigation)