141 F. Supp. 3d 873
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Frey was hired in Aug 2008 at Holiday Inn Express owned by Hotel Coleman (HC); day-to-day operations were managed by Vaughn Hospitality (VH) and its sole owner/GM Michael Vaughn.
- Shortly after hiring, Vaughn made repeated unwanted sexual advances and remarks; Frey complained internally but the behavior continued.
- Frey became pregnant in June 2009; she alleges hours were cut, she was transferred to night shift without promised promotion or pay, and pregnancy-related accommodation requests were ignored.
- Frey filed charges with the EEOC and Illinois Department of Human Rights while on maternity leave; she returned April 12, 2010 and was terminated one week later for an alleged theft that HC later admitted had no evidentiary basis.
- HC failed to respond to Frey’s summary judgment motion and admissions in discovery were deemed admitted; the court treated the undisputed facts as established and granted Frey summary judgment against HC on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual harassment / hostile work environment | Vaughn’s repeated sexual advances and comments created an objectively and subjectively hostile workplace; HC is vicariously liable because Vaughn was her supervisor | (No timely response; HC made admissions in discovery) | Granted: Vaughn’s conduct was unwelcome, sex-based, severe/pervasive, interfered with work, and HC is strictly/vicariously liable |
| Pregnancy discrimination | HC denied promotion, cut hours, and changed terms of employment because of Frey’s pregnancy; HC admitted she did not get position due to pregnancy | (No rebuttal; admissions during discovery) | Granted: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence establish intentional discrimination |
| Retaliation | Frey engaged in protected activity by filing EEOC/IHR charges and was terminated shortly after; termination was pretextual (fabricated theft) | (No rebuttal; HC admitted knowledge of the charge and lack of evidence for theft) | Granted: protected activity, adverse action, and causal link shown by timing and pretext |
| Employer liability standard for supervisor conduct | Vaughn had authority to hire, fire, promote, transfer; thus qualifies as supervisor for Title VII and HC is liable | (No contest) | Held: Vaughn was Frey’s supervisor under agency/principal control principles; HC strictly vicariously liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Moser v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 406 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2005) (elements of hostile work environment claim)
- Mentor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (harassment must be severe or pervasive to be actionable)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (objective, reasonable-person inquiry in sexual harassment cases)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (vicarious employer liability for supervisor-created hostile work environment)
- Greengrass v. International Monetary Sys. Ltd., 776 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2015) (protected activity and timing relevant to retaliation causation)
- Rhodes v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 359 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2004) (supervisor definition for Title VII incorporates agency/control principles)
- Jajeh v. County of Cook, 678 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012) (authority to hire, fire, promote indicates supervisory status)
- Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Illinois, Inc., 163 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1998) (employer strict liability for supervisor harassment)