Treadwell v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

2019 IL App (1st) 182058-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: November 22, 2019
• Docket: 1-18-2058
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2019 IL App (1st) 182058-U No. 1-18-2058

SIXTH DIVISION November 22, 2019

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ YVONNE TREADWELL, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 2015 L 12944 ) THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) Honorable CITY OF CHICAGO, ) Patricia O’Brien Sheahan, ) Judge Presiding. Defendant-Appellee.

JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Mikva and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We affirm the circuit court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment where plaintiff has not presented a sufficient record for our review of her claims.

¶2 Plaintiff Yvonne Treadwell filed suit against defendant the Board of Education of the

City of Chicago (Board) for retaliatory discharge under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA)

(775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.) (West 2014)). The circuit court of Cook County granted the Board’s No. 1-18-2058

motion for summary judgment. Treadwell appeals, contending that the circuit court erred in

finding no genuine issue of material fact. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of

the circuit court of Cook County.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 The following factual recitation, taken from the pleadings, exhibits, and orders of record,

contains only what is necessary for our disposition of the issues on appeal. Treadwell was

employed by the Board as a custodian from February 2005 through January 2014 at the Austin

Multiplex Campus (Austin), a Chicago Public School. The lead custodian was John Henderson.

In 2012, Treadwell complained to school principal Todd Yarch that Henderson had sexually

harassed her. She subsequently filed a complaint with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS)’s Equal

Opportunity Compliance Office (EOCO) alleging, inter alia, that Henderson sexually harassed

her. On February 7, 2013, the EOCO notified Treadwell of its determination that there had been

no violation of the Board’s sexual harassment policy.

¶5 That same day, the CPS Office of Employee Engagement (OEE) notified Treadwell that

they were removing her from duty with pay pending the outcome of a pre-suspension hearing

based on an allegation that she made threatening remarks to her co-workers. Following an

investigation, OEE found credible evidence existed to support the allegation that, on Monday,

February 4, 2013, Treadwell stated via her work radio she was going to blow up the school

building and body parts would be all over the school. OEE filed dismissal charges against

Treadwell and the matter proceeded to a discharge hearing on November 15, 2013.

-2- No. 1-18-2058

¶6 During the hearing, Fannie White, Latrice Kent, and Lyndon Glave 1, CPS custodians

working with Treadwell on February 4, 2013, testified that they heard Treadwell announce over

the custodians’ radio that she was going to “blow up” the school with them in it, and their “body

parts” would be “scattered” everywhere. Additionally, custodian Judy Jeffries testified that she

heard Treadwell announce “Attention custodians,” “blow up,” and “I’m not going to help no one.

I’m not going to help yawl [sic].” The next day the four custodians reported the incident to

Yarch, the school principal, and the police. Yarch also filed a police report.

¶7 Treadwell testified that she never threatened anyone over the radio in February 2013.

Rather, she testified that in January 2013, she informed school engineer Brian Pittmon via radio

of a loud noise in the basement, which she felt was out of the ordinary. Pittmon investigated, shut

off the boiler, and thanked her the next day. Treadwell assumed the building could have blown

up had Pittmon not turned off the boiler.

¶8 Explaining the February 4, 2013, radio call, Treadwell stated that she contacted Glave,

who was the stand-in lead custodian that day, via radio and asked why he had written her up

without talking to her. She reminded him that she was “the one that heard the boiler and *** told

Brian about it to stop it from blowing up the building. *** I could have easily walked out of

here, but I save [sic] everybody. And yawl [sic] still acting crazy with me.” According to

Treadwell, she did not say anything over the radio about “body parts” and did not threaten any of

the staff at Austin.

1 Treadwell refers to Glave as “Lindon Glaze” or “Lyndon Glaze” throughout her deposition testimony, underlying pleadings, and appellate brief. According to the transcript of the Board’s hearing, however, his name is spelled “Lyndon Glave.”

-3- No. 1-18-2058

¶9 On December 11, 2013, finding a sufficient basis to terminate her services as a CPS

custodial worker, OEE suspended Treadwell without pay effective December 13, 2013, and

recommended to the Board that Treadwell’s employment be terminated. The Board approved the

recommendation and on January 24, 2014, CPS informed Treadwell she was dismissed, effective

immediately.

¶ 10 In June 2014, Treadwell filed a discrimination charge with the Illinois Department of

Human Rights (IDHR), alleging that she was terminated in retaliation for reporting Henderson’s

sexual harassment, which triggered the “false accusations” against her. On September 30, 2015,

IDHR dismissed the complaint due to a lack of substantial evidence supporting Treadwell’s

allegation. Treadwell then filed a timely retaliatory discharge action under the Illinois Human

Rights Act against the Board in the Circuit Court of Cook County. 2

¶ 11 In Treadwell’s 2016 amended complaint, she alleged, as relevant here, that she was

discharged in retaliation for reporting Henderson’s sexual harassment. 3 Specifically, she alleged

that Yarch, Jeffries, Glave, White, and Reggie Hubbard interfered with her employment by

“incorrectly alleging” she threatened to bomb the school building, and that Henderson instigated

Hubbard, Jeffries, Glaze, and White to make the untrue comments. Treadwell claimed that “an

inference of retaliatory motivation” was raised by the short period of time between her February

2 Pursuant to section 7A-102(D)(3) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(3) (West 2014)), when the IDHR dismisses a discrimination complaint, the complainant may, within 90 days, seek review of the decision by the IDHR or, as Treadwell did here, file a civil action in the circuit court. 3 Treadwell filed another amended complaint on October 13, 2017. However, the trial court struck that amended complaint on October 25, 2017, and thus the 2016 amended complaint is the operative pleading here. The 2016 amended complaint included additional counts against the Board, as well as against Yarch and Henderson individually, all of which were dismissed with prejudice during the course of the litigation. Treadwell does not appeal those dismissals.

-4- No. 1-18-2058

2013 suspension, “which was triggered by her reporting of sexual harassment,” and her January

2014 termination. Treadwell alleged that the Board, under the doctrine of respondeat superior,

was liable for the conduct of its employees Yarch, Hubbard, Jeffries, Glave, and White.

¶ 12 The Board filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching numerous exhibits, including

depositions from Treadwell, Yarch, Henderson, and an EOCO administrator, as well as an audio

transcript of the dismissal hearing and CPS documents. Treadwell filed a response, which is not

included in the record on appeal.

¶ 13 After an August 30, 2018, hearing, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor

of the Board. In its written order, the court dismissed Treadwell’s complaint with prejudice “for

reasons stated in open court and incorporated into the transcript of the proceedings for today’s

hearing.” This appeal followed.

¶ 14 ANALYSIS

¶ 15 We note that we have jurisdiction to review this matter, as Treadwell filed a timely notice

of appeal following the entry of summary judgment. Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); Ill. S.

Ct. R. 303 (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 16 As an initial matter, Treadwell’s brief fails to comply with many of the requirements of

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341, which governs the content of appellate briefs. For example, her

“Points and Authorities” statement does not set forth the requisite argument headings (see Rule

341(h)(1)), her statement of jurisdiction does not establish the basis for our jurisdiction (see Rule

341(h)(4)(ii)), and her argument section contains neither citations to the record nor citations to

legal authority supporting her claims (see Rule 341(h)(7)).

-5- No. 1-18-2058

¶ 17 Further, in violation of Rule 341(h)(6), Treadwell’s cursory statement of facts does not

set forth “the facts necessary to an understanding of the case,” and a number of facts she does set

forth are blatant misrepresentations of the record. For example, she baldly states that Henderson

is a convicted felon, when he specifically testified under oath that he was not. In addition, she

purports to quote from the “deposition” of Patricia Sanders when there is no Sanders deposition

in the record. Treadwell’s citations to this “deposition,” correspond to an affidavit of Sanders and

to the Board’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, neither of which contains

the quoted language. Indeed, the Sanders affidavit was filed with Treadwell’s October 13, 2017

amended complaint, which was stricken by the circuit court on October 25, 2017; it does not

appear anywhere else in the record.

¶ 18 The supreme court rules are not suggestions, and we may strike a brief for failure to

comply with the rules. McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12. Nevertheless, because

as we have the benefit of the Board’s cogent brief, we will address the merits of Treadwell’s

appeal. See North Community Bank v. 17011 South Park Ave., LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 133672, ¶

14 (reviewing merits of the appeal despite appellant’s numerous violations of Supreme Court

Rule 341(h)).

¶ 19 Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, admissions on file,

and affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2014). “Although a

plaintiff is not required to prove his case at the summary judgment stage, in order to survive a

motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present a factual basis that would

arguably entitle the party to a judgment.” Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324, 335 (2002). We

-6- No. 1-18-2058

review the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, and construe all evidence

in the record strictly against the moving party and liberally in favor of the nonmoving party.

Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 49.

¶ 20 In assessing Treadwell’s retaliatory discharge claim under the IHRA, we are guided by

federal case law relating to federal anti-discrimination statutes, including Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. See Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Com’n, 131 Ill. 2d 172, 178 (1989);

Lau v. Abbott Laboratories, 2019 IL App (2d) 180456, ¶ 38. There are two methods of

establishing a retaliatory discharge claim under the IHRA: the direct method and the indirect

method. Boston v. U.S. Steel Corp., 816 F. 3d 455, 463 (7th Cir. 2016). Under the direct method,

Treadwell had to establish a causal connection between her filing the sexual harassment

complaint and her discharge. Id. at 464. And under the indirect method, she had to establish the

Board’s reason for her discharge was actually a pretext for discrimination. Id.

¶ 21 Treadwell contends that she presented sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment

under either method. The Board counters that Treadwell has not presented a sufficient record on

appeal to support her contentions. We agree.

¶ 22 As the appellant, it was Treadwell’s burden to provide a sufficiently complete record to

support a claim of error. Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426, 432 (2001); see Ill. S. Ct. R. 321

(eff. Feb. 1, 1994); Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. July 1, 2017). In the absence of such a record, we must

presume the trial court acted in conformity with the law and with a sufficient factual basis for its

findings. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). Any doubts which may arise from

the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant (id. at 392), particularly

-7- No. 1-18-2058

where, as here, the judgment order states the court is fully advised in the premises. (Maniscalco

v. Porte Brown, LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 180716, ¶ 30.)

¶ 23 In this case, Treadwell has not included her response to the motion for summary

judgment, or any attachments to her response, in the record on appeal. 4 Nor has she included a

transcript of the summary judgment hearing in the record on appeal, or prepared a bystander’s

report as provided in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) (eff. July 1, 2017)). Without these

materials, it is impossible for us to conduct a de novo review of the circuit court’s conclusion that

Treadwell failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding her retaliatory discharge

claim. Instead, we must presume the circuit court acted in conformity with the standards

applicable to motions for summary judgment and had a sufficient factual basis for entering

summary judgment in favor of the Board. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92.

¶ 24 CONCLUSION

¶ 25 For this reason, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 26 Affirmed.

4 The Board’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment reflects that plaintiff did, in fact, file a response to the motion. Treadwell does not cite to that response in her brief on appeal, and has not filed a reply brief.

-8-