46 F. Supp. 3d 836
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Galvan, a Spanish-speaking Mexican national, worked as a second-shift custodian at Jacobs High School since 2000.
- His supervisor, Veilleux, repeatedly told him to speak English and occasionally during the period (2009–2011) scolded him in front of others; he was not disciplined or prevented from performing essential duties.
- Galvan alleges a broader pattern aimed at eliminating Hispanic and older employees, though he has no disciplinary records or performance criticisms against him.
- In April 2011, Galvan volunteered for overtime at a basketball tournament; Veilleux warned him not to seek translation help if he could not understand urgent requests and warned of losing overtime if complaints arose.
- Veilleux later transferred Galvan additional rooms to clean; Galvan completed all tasks with no repercussions, while some non-Hispanic colleagues received more favorable overtime treatment.
- Engel, the new Jacobs principal in July 2011, instructed that English-only demands could not be imposed and suggested Veilleux learn some Spanish; Veilleux resigned on September 16, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Galvan suffered a materially adverse employment action | Galvan argues conduct changed working conditions and workload, and language-related treatment harmed him. | No demotion, discipline, or pay loss; overtime denial did not meet material adversity; extra workload within job scope not adverse. | No material adverse action found; summary judgment for District. |
| Whether Galvan established a cognizable hostile work environment | Harassment based on national origin and age created a hostile environment. | District adequately addressed complaints; supervisor's conduct did not culminate in liability; Galvan forfeited arguments. | Hostile environment claim failed; District not liable; summary judgment for District. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lapka v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 974 (7th Cir.2008) (additional work within job description not adverse)
- Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824 (7th Cir.2004) (heavier workload not adverse)
- Fane v. Locke Reynolds, LLP, 480 F.3d 534 (7th Cir.2007) (harder work assignments not adverse)
- Haugerud v. Amery Sch. Dist., 259 F.3d 678 (7th Cir.2001) (non-demoting tasks within job scope not adverse)
- Nichols v. S. Ill. Univ.-Edwardsville, 510 F.3d 772 (7th Cir.2007) (overtime losses not adverse unless significant and recurring)
- Tart v. Ill. Power Co., 366 F.3d 461 (7th Cir.2004) (categories of adverse action including work environment changes)
- Dass v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 675 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir.2012) (same framework for adverse actions)
- Berry v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 260 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.2001) (employer liability and harassment standards)
- Saxton v. AT&T Co., 10 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.1993) (employer liability for harassment under certain standards)
- Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715 (7th Cir.2011) (forfeiture/waiver when arguments are not developed)
- Johnson v. Holder, 700 F.3d 979 (7th Cir.2012) (hearsay limitations on evidence in summary judgment)