Sommerfield v. City of Chicago
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12443
7th Cir.2017Background
- Detlef Sommerfield, a Chicago Police officer, alleged that Sergeant Lawrence Knasiak made repeated anti-Jewish and anti-German remarks, creating a hostile work environment; Sommerfield complained and the CPD investigated.
- Sommerfield filed EEOC charges (which found reasonable cause) and later sued the City alleging religious and national-origin discrimination (hostile work environment), retaliation, and claims under §§ 1981 and 1983.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment: narrowed discrimination claims to hostile-work-environment conduct by Knasiak, dismissed §§ 1981/1983 claims for lack of policy/evidence, and limited the retaliation claim (excluding many staffing decisions as untimely/unsupported).
- A jury found for Sommerfield on the discrimination (hostile work environment) claims and awarded $30,000; it found for the City on retaliation.
- Sommerfield’s attorney sought $1.5 million (3,742 hours at $395/hr). The magistrate reduced hours and rate, producing a lodestar of $863,000, then halved it for limited success, awarding $430,000; the district court adopted this.
- Sommerfield appealed multiple rulings (summary judgment limitations, denial of sanctions for City’s failure to disclose public retirement resolutions, and the fee reductions). The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of EEOC charge / discrimination claims | EEOC charge alleging hostile environment from Knasiak encompassed staffing decisions and other adverse acts | Original EEOC charge described only Knasiak's verbal harassment; staffing decisions implicate different actors and are retaliation, not discrimination | Court held staffing decisions were not reasonably related to the EEOC charge and were properly excluded from discrimination claims |
| Use of staffing/earlier incidents as evidence | Staffing decisions could be admitted as pre-charge evidence to show a pattern tied to Knasiak's discrimination | Incidents lack linkage to Knasiak and are not sufficiently particular to be admissible to show discrimination | Court held plaintiff failed to show the necessary factual nexus; district court properly excluded or limited that evidence |
| Summary judgment timeliness / adequacy of plaintiff's record citations | Plaintiff argued district court erred in excluding many retaliation claims | City argued plaintiff failed to cite specific record evidence as required by Rule 56 | Court held plaintiff did not meet Rule 56 burden; district court did not err in refusing to sift the record for him |
| Attorney’s fees: hours, rate, and overall reduction | Longo argued his hours/rate were reasonable and that reductions double-counted; requested full fee | City disputed hours and rate, submitted lower-rate affidavit; court criticized Longo’s performance and limited success | Court upheld reductions: excluded unreasonable hours, reduced hourly rate to $300, computed lodestar, then halved it for limited success — affirmed |
| Sanctions for nondisclosure of City Council resolutions | Sommerfield argued City should be sanctioned for not producing public retirement resolutions for Knasiak | City argued resolutions were publicly available and not relevant to claims | Court found no bad faith, no prejudice, and no basis for sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ezell v. Potter, 400 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. 2005) (EEOC charge must reasonably relate to subsequent claims)
- Bordelon v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 811 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standards; nonmovant must cite particular record evidence)
- Johnson v. GDF, Inc., 668 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2012) (lodestar defined as reasonable hours × reasonable rate)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (factors for awarding attorney fees and adjustments for limited success)
- Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014) (approving exclusion of unnecessary hours then reduction of lodestar for limited success)
- Baker v. Lindgren, 856 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2017) (deference to district court fee determinations and use of discretionary adjustments)
- Anderson v. AB Painting & Sandblasting Inc., 578 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2009) (fees need not be proportional to damages, but proportionality may be a factor)
- Schlacher v. Law Offices of Phillip J. Rotche & Assocs., P.C., 574 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2009) (district courts may consider proportionality among other factors)
- Richardson v. City of Chicago, Ill., 740 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2014) (if claims are inseparable, court may make an across-the-board reduction reflecting ratio of success)