Skip to main content

Allegations of Alleged Racial Discrimination Are Enough to Defeat a Motion to Dismiss


Valdivia v. Township High School District 214 - United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division


Facts:  Noemi Valdivia ("Valdivia") worked for Township High School District 214 ("Township") as a secretary at Elk Grove High School from May 2010 until June 2016.  Valdivia alleged that during her employment, co-workers "regularly made derogatory remarks about Hispanic students and their families" which increased in frequency around September 2014.  In fact, Valdivia was told by another secretary at one point not to speak Spanish at work because they were in America.  Valdivia complained about the comments to Elk Grove principal Paul Kelly ("Kelly") "several times in 2015" and to assistant principal Val Norris ("Norris") in November of 2015.  Kelly and Norris both told Valdivia that there was nothing they could do to address the comments because the secretaries' union was too strong.

Around March of 2016, Valdivia applied for and was offered a secretary position at Wheeling High School "in an effort to remove herself from the racially hostile work environment at Elk Grove High School."  In July of 2016, an associate principal told Valdivia that "those people" (referring to a Mexican family) never pay their bills.  Afterward, Valdivia became "extremely distraught and began crying regularly and uncontrollably at work."  Valdivia told her supervisor, Principal Angela Sisi ("Sisi") that she was overwhelmed and was unsure if she could continue working.  Valdivia also called the school counselor Ruby Aleman ("Aleman") and Latino Outreach Family Coordinator David Maya ("Maya") while crying uncontrollably and indicated she did not know if she could continue working for Township.  Sisi, Aleman, and Maya all told Valdivia that she had to decide whether to continue working or resign.  After much back and forth, Valdivia said she would resign "due to medical reasons" and feeling overwhelmed.  In early August of 2016, Valdivia provided a letter of resignation and Township subsequently posted a job vacancy for her position.  Valdivia told Sisi that she wanted to rescind her resignation but was told it was too late as a replacement had already been selected.

Valdivia subsequently filed suit against Township on the grounds that she was discriminated against on the basis of race and Township also interfered with her right to take job protected leave (in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act).  Township thereafter filed a motion to dismiss Valdivia's claims.

Holding:  (Note, this analysis only looks at the Title VII portion of Valdivia's suit).  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment.  A Title VII claimant must establish (1) she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based upon her national origin or religion; (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive so as to alter the condition of employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability.  In the Seventh Circuit (where this case is pending), the District Court noted that the first prong is sometimes construed to require a claimant to show the work environment was both subjectively and objectively offensive.

Unlike the standard proposed by Township, the Court held that the complained of harassment must be either severe or pervasive, such that one extremely serious act of harassment could rise to an actionable level (as could a series of less severe acts).  In considering whether a defendant's alleged conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive, a court can consider factors such as the nature and frequency of the conduct, whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance, and whether it was directed at the employee.

Although Township claimed that the complained of conduct in this case did not plausibly allege that Township's employees' conduct was severe or pervasive (because the comments were not offensive "enough", not directed to or about Valdivia, and Valdivia did not establish the comments "unreasonably" interfered with her work performance), the Court disagreed.  Township acknowledged that Valdivia had alleged repeated and derogatory comments about Hispanic families.  As a result of this conduct, Valdivia could no longer tolerate working at Elk Grove and had to transfer to another school but subsequently became distraught when she felt there was a similarly hostile comment from a supervisor.  Given this stage of litigation, the Court held that Valdivia's allegations were sufficient to state a claim of a hostile work environment. 

Judgment:  The District Court denied Township's motion to dismiss Valdivia's Title VII racial discrimination claim on the grounds that based upon the allegations included in her petition, Valdivia had established the four factors necessary to proceed with her claim. 

The Takeaway:  Some readers might look at this case and the Court's ruling and be a bit perplexed.  Are allegations alone enough for a plaintiff to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim?  Should the Court have disregarded these broad allegations and actually dismissed the Title VII cause of action?  Does the Court's ruling mean that Valdivia is likely to prevail at trial?  The answer to all these questions is a resounding "no".   

Note the Court's acknowledgment that at this stage of litigation (given that suit had been filed and Township had yet to file an answer), the standard for a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss is relatively low.  This was not a motion for summary judgment (or even a trial) where the standard of proof for a plaintiff to prevail is higher.  Instead, in accordance with Seventh Circuit precedent, allegations such as the ones included in Valdivia's petition were enough for her to establish the "basics" of her Title VII claim and defeat Township's motion to dismiss.  Of course whether these allegations will hold up as litigation progresses is an unresolved question.  Township could produce witnesses, testimony, or related evidence to counter the allegations Valdivia made.  This case could (and likely will) evolve once Township files its answer, discovery is conducted, depositions are taken, etc.  In the meantime, readers should bear in mind that at this motion to dismiss stage of litigation, the plaintiff has a relatively easy burden of proof to establish the basics of his or her claim and proceed ahead.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Magistrate Judge Schenkier

Date:  May 15, 2017

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/ValdiviaTownship051517.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more