Godfrey v. City of Chicago
973 F. Supp. 2d 883
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are African-American applicants from the Lewis litigation (1995 written exam -> 1996 eligibility list) who were selected for remedial hiring lottery and took the City’s physical abilities test (PAT) in November 2011; each was notified on Dec. 1, 2011 that she failed and later collected Lewis backpay awards.
- Lewis produced a remedial injunction requiring the City to hire 111 class members via a process using the 1996 eligibility list; the injunction stated there would be "no further hiring" from that list other than to implement the remedy.
- Separate litigation (Vasich) challenged the PAT as discriminatory against women; Vasich was pending and later settled. Godfrey (this case) was filed by Lewis class members within 90 days of EEOC right-to-sue notices, asserting Title VII sex discrimination based on the PAT.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing the Lewis injunction, claim preclusion, Title VII §2000e-2(n), Rule 23(b)(2) limits, double-recovery concerns, and laches bar Godfrey.
- The court found the PAT-based sex claims are distinct from the race-based claims resolved in Lewis and denied summary judgment except as to two plaintiffs (Smith and Garner) whose lottery rankings made them ineligible for the 111 remedial hires regardless of the PAT result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Lewis injunction bars Godfrey claims | Godfrey: Lewis injunction does not preclude separate Title VII claims for sex discrimination in the PAT | City: Injunction precludes further relief from the 1996 list and insulates City from additional suits | Court: Injunction does not bar independent sex-discrimination claims arising during remedial hiring |
| Whether Godfrey is precluded by res judicata / collateral attack | Godfrey: Claims arise from different "transaction" (2011 PAT) and thus not precluded | City: Plaintiffs could have raised PAT issues in Lewis and are seeking a second bite | Court: Different operative facts and timing; claim preclusion does not apply |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) or class-wide remedy constraints bar individualized Godfrey relief | Godfrey: Rule 23(b)(2) limitations in Lewis do not prevent a separate class or individualized relief for a new injury | City: Only class-wide relief in Lewis; Godfrey seeks supplemental individualized relief | Court: Rule 23(b)(2) applies to each class; separate putative class may seek relief appropriate to its claims |
| Whether specific plaintiffs (Smith, Garner) have standing | Godfrey: All plaintiffs injured by PAT discrimination | City: Smith & Garner ranked too low in lottery to have been hired even absent PAT, so no injury | Court: Smith and Garner lack standing; judgment for City as to them |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. City of Chicago, 713 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard)
- Czarniecki v. City of Chicago, 633 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2011) (res judicata "same transaction" test explained)
- United States ex rel. Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 570 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2009) (elements of claim preclusion)
- Farrell v. Butler Univ., 421 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2005) (standing requirement for disparate-impact claims)
- Anderson v. Cornejo, 355 F.3d 1021 (7th Cir. 2004) (disparate-treatment requires adverse action "because of" protected characteristic)
- Bragg v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp., 164 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 1998) (definition of disparate treatment)
- Pruitt v. Chicago, 472 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2006) (laches in Title VII context requires lack of diligence and prejudice)
- Nat’l R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (timeliness principles cited in laches discussion)
- Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2010) (Supreme Court litigation history of the underlying race discrimination case)