Montes v. Cicero Public School District No. 99
141 F. Supp. 3d 885
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Dr. Jane Montes, of Mexican national origin, served as Cicero Public School District No. 99’s ELL Director on one-year contracts from 2008–2011; her 2011 contract was not renewed and she sued for national-origin and associational discrimination under Title VII and for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against two supervisors, Donna Adamic and Michael Dziallo.
- Montes had strong bilingual/administrative credentials and generally positive earlier evaluations from her immediate supervisor, Karen Mulattieri, who later resigned after disputes about supervision and program control.
- In 2010–2011 the District reassigned ELL data-entry responsibilities to Montes’ office after a reporting error; Montes received an improvement plan addressing budget, vision, and staff supervision and was later evaluated by Adamic and Dziallo as “not meeting professional standards.”
- Adamic and Dziallo recommended non-renewal; the School Board (the ultimate decisionmaker) accepted that recommendation at a closed session without allowing Montes a hearing; she was replaced by Ilyse Leland (not of Mexican origin).
- The district moved for summary judgment; the court denied summary judgment on Montes’ Title VII claims (finding genuine issues of fact including pretext and potential cat’s-paw liability) but granted summary judgment in favor of Adamic and Dziallo on the tortious-interference claim (Montes lacked a reasonable expectancy of continued employment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montes can establish a prima facie Title VII claim (including legitimate expectations and comparators) | Montes argues she met job expectations (earlier positive reviews, improvement work) and was replaced by a non-Mexican less qualified — supporting discrimination | District contends Montes was not meeting legitimate expectations (documented performance deficiencies) and comparators are not similarly situated | Court: Genuine disputes of fact exist about performance, comparators, and replacement — Title VII claim denied summary judgment and proceeds to trial |
| Whether District’s stated non‑renewal reason was pretextual | Montes presents detailed rebuttal of specific performance criticisms (and evidence undermining evaluators’ statements) to show employer dishonesty | District asserts honest, nondiscriminatory reasons tied to evaluation and program failures | Court: Plaintiff’s specific refutations create a jury question on pretext — cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Whether Adamic and Dziallo’s alleged bias can be imputed where Board was final decisionmaker (cat’s‑paw theory) | Montes contends Adamic and Dziallo supplied influential, biased input and Board relied on their recommendation | District argues Board was the ultimate decisionmaker and acted independently | Court: Material fact dispute whether Board acted independently or followed biased input — cat’s‑paw theory plausible; issue for jury |
| Whether Montes may recover for intentional interference with business expectancy against Adamic and Dziallo | Montes points to prior renewals, improvement plan, and alleged assurances to show a reasonable expectancy of continued employment | Defendants note year-to-year contract, explicit warnings her contract might not be renewed, and Illinois law that renewable contracts alone do not create a reasonable expectancy | Held: Court grants summary judgment for Adamic and Dziallo — Montes lacked a reasonable expectancy of continued employment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for indirect proof in discrimination cases)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Pantoja v. American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., 495 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2007) (replacement by employer can satisfy comparator requirement when plaintiff shows she met expectations)
- Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co., 28 F.3d 1446 (7th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff may create a factual issue by specifically refuting events underlying employer’s performance criticisms)
- Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2012) (cat’s‑paw theory: subordinate’s biased input can support employer liability)
- Everroad v. Scott Truck Systems, Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (overlap of legitimate-expectations and pretext analyses when employer cites poor performance)
- Woods v. City of Berwyn, 803 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2015) (board’s independent, adversarial decisionmaking can negate cat’s‑paw liability)