Pinkston v. City Of Chicago Fire Department
1:13-cv-07399
| N.D. Ill. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Pinkston, an African-American Deputy District Chief (exempt-rank) with the Chicago Fire Department since 1983, went on medical lay-up for back pain in July 2011.
- CFD announced an “Age 55 Option” early Sept. 2011 that allowed union-represented employees to retire at 55 with full health benefits; exempt-rank eligibility was unclear.
- Pinkston claims he learned of his eligibility only hours before the application deadline and, due to timing and access issues while off-duty, could not timely file; two white DDCs obtained the benefit but no black DDCs did.
- While seeking to return from lay-up, Pinkston provided multiple physician releases but CFD required additional evaluations and a Functional Capacity Exam (FCE); Medical Division initially refused to schedule the FCE.
- CFD removed Pinkston from payroll (Dec. 22, 2011) as allegedly out of paid leave, sent a March 20, 2012 letter about status, and discharged him April 12, 2012 for being absent without leave.
- Pinkston filed three IDHR charges alleging race and perceived-disability discrimination and retaliation; he sued under § 1983 (equal protection), Title VII (race discrimination and retaliation), and the ADA/ADAAA (perceived disability and retaliation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell) | City officials’ actions (denial of Age 55 Option, termination) show municipal policy/custom or final policymaker liability | No express policy, no widespread custom, and fire commissioners lack final policymaking authority for hiring/firing decisions | Summary judgment for City: Pinkston failed to show Monell liability; § 1983 claim dismissed |
| ADA "regarded as" discrimination | CFD regarded Pinkston as disabled and acted adversely (preventing return / terminating) | Even if perceived as impaired, impairment was transitory/minor and thus outside ADA coverage | Summary judgment for City: impairment was transitory/minor under ADAAA; ADA discrimination claim dismissed |
| Title VII race discrimination — denial of Age 55 Option | Denial of retirement benefit was adverse, arguably motivated by race; similarly situated white DDCs received benefit; City’s explanation (failed to apply) is pretextual | Plaintiff failed to timely apply; notification/administration problems were not racially motivated | Denied summary judgment: jury could find race discrimination re: Age 55 Option; claim survives |
| Title VII race discrimination — termination | Termination was adverse; plaintiff argues termination was race-based (unequal treatment re: FCE requirements and discipline) | No admissible evidence showing similarly situated white DDCs treated differently; plaintiff’s assertions are hearsay/speculation | Summary judgment for City: insufficient evidence to create triable issue that termination was race-motivated |
| Title VII & ADA retaliation | Pinkston engaged in protected activity (internal complaints and IDHR charges); adverse actions followed; shifting medical requirements and decisionmaker’s knowledge support causation | CFD used legitimate reasons (leave exhaustion, failure to return) and lacked knowledge/evidence of retaliation | Denied summary judgment: factual disputes (timing, shifting reasons, decisionmaker involvement, CBA calculation irregularities) could permit a jury to find retaliatory motive |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or final policymaker)
- Kujawski v. Board of Commissioners, 183 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1999) (final policymaker inquiry requires authority to set policy, not just to act)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (Title VII analysis focuses on whether evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to conclude discrimination caused the adverse action)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must show genuine factual dispute to avoid summary judgment)
- Baines v. Walgreen Co., 863 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2017) (retaliation: circumstantial evidence can establish but-for causation)
- Greengrass v. International Monetary Systems Ltd., 776 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2015) (retaliation elements and but-for causation standard)
- Gordon v. United Airlines, 246 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2001) (courts may scrutinize employer explanations that defy common sense)
- Hobgood v. Illinois Gaming Board, 731 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2013) (an employer’s implausible reason supports inference of pretext)