Employment Law Clinic—Significant Achievements for 2020-21

During the past academic year, the Employment Law Clinic has continued its work in both individual and class employment discrimination cases as well as handling a few appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Individual Cases

Alamo v. Chicago, (N.D. Ill.)

Robert Alamo worked as a firefighter for the City of Chicago for a number of years. During this time, he was subjected to a number of racial slurs because of his national origin. He was also treated differently than a non-Hispanic firefighter. This disparate treatment included being excessively detailed to other firehouses, and being required to overcome numerous hurdles to return to work after taking time off for stress. Ultimately, the City refused to allow Mr. Alamo to return to work from a medical leave and discharged him. Mr. Alamo’s complaint alleges that the City subjected him to a racially hostile work environment, retaliated against him for complaining about the discrimination, and ultimately discharged him in retaliation for filing his case and because of a perceived mental disability.

In early 2021, the District Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on Mr. Alamo’s claim that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The case is currently set for trial in September 2021.

Gesiakowski v. MMBC and the LaSalle Network (N.D. Ill.)

The Employment law Clinic was appointed as settlement counsel for plaintiff, Barbara Gesiakowski in a disability discrimination and retaliation case. Ms. Gesiakowski was subjected to a hostile work environment because of a disability. When she complained about it, she was discharged. The case was pending before the District Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss when the Court agreed to appoint settlement counsel for Ms. Gesiakowski. After being appointed, students in the Employment Law Clinic met with Ms. Gesiakowski, drafted her settlement demand, and then fully participated in the settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge. At the settlement conference, the parties were able to reach a settlement.

Class Actions

The Employment Law Clinic also continues to handle a number of class action employment discrimination cases. Examples of these class actions include:

Porter v Pipefitters Association Local Union 597 (N.D. Ill.)

In Porter, plaintiffs claim that Local 597 discriminated against a class of African-American union members by operating hiring systems (a Hiring Hall and a Referral Hall) that disadvantaged African-American pipefitters with respect to their work hours and other benefits of employment.

After years of litigation, the Court denied Local 597’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim that the union engaged in intentional race discrimination in implementing the hiring systems. The parties thereafter agreed to a settlement of the class action. Under the terms of the settlement, Local 597 paid $3,000,000 to resolve the claims of the class and the class representatives, as well as the claims of the Clinic and its co-counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs. The settlement also includes significant non-monetary relief, including a change in the percentage of pipefitters hired from the Referral Hall, increased fines to contractors for violations of the Referral Hall system, increased efforts to recruit African-Americans to Local 597’s Apprenticeship Program, and quarterly reports to the Court, a court-appointed consultant, and class counsel on the progress made in implementing the non-monetary terms of the settlement.

In late 2020, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and ordered the distribution of the settlement proceeds. The District Court retained jurisdiction over the case for the next five years in order to monitor the progress on the non-monetary terms of the settlement.

CTU v. CBOE (Turnaround Class Action) (N.D. Ill.)

In this class action case, a class of African American teachers and paraprofessionals claim that the Chicago Board of Education’s school “turnarounds” in 2012 to 2014, had a racially adverse impact on African American school teachers and staff. In a “turnaround” the CBOE displaces all teachers and paraprofessionals at a school and replaces them. The decision to displace the teachers and paraprofessionals at a school is not based on the teachers’ job performance. Rather, the decision is based on the performance of students at the schools.

In addition to the adverse impact claim, plaintiffs claim that the CBOE has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that the CBOE has intentionally selected schools on the South and West sides of Chicago for turnaround. The schools selected have high percentages of both African American students and teachers. Schools with higher numbers of white students and teachers are not selected for turnaround even though their performance is the same or worse than the schools actually selected.

In 2020, both parties moved for summary judgment. In early 2021, the District Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. The case will now proceed to trial sometime in 2022.

Appellate Cases

In addition to trial level cases, the Employment Law Clinic represents clients in a number of appeals in the U.S. Court Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In some of these appeals, the Employment Law Clinic is recruited by the Court to represent pro se appellants in their appeals. In other appeals, the Clinic is contacted and asked to participate as an amicus curiae. Students working on these appeals write the briefs and present oral argument to the 7th Circuit. The students are supervised in these appeals by both Randall Schmidt and James Whitehead.

Reed v PF of Milwaukee (7th Cir.)

In this case, Melvin Reed tried to file a discrimination complaint against Planet Fitness of Milwaukee. The Clerk of the court refused to accept his filing because the District Court in a prior case entered an order barring him from filing new cases until he paid $5,000 in sanctions. The Clerk sent Mr. Reed a letter explaining why the Clerk’s Office would not accept his proposed filing. After receipt of that letter, Mr. Reed filed a motion with the District Court seeking to have the “no-file” order lifted. In response, the District Court entered an order denying Mr. Reed’s motion but notified him that his inability to pay the sanctions could be a basis to vacate the no file order. That order was sent by the court to an incorrect address even though the court had Mr. Reed’s current address. When the court finally re-mailed the order to Mr. Reed’s correct address, the 90-day period to file his complaint had expired. Nevertheless, Mr. Reed filed another motion and additional information about his inability to pay the sanction. The Court then granted this motion to lift the no-file order and the Clerk accepted Mr. Reed’s discrimination complaint for filing.

After the complaint was filed, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the complaint was filed beyond the filing deadline. In response, Mr. Reed argued that the deadline should be tolled because of the court’s error in mailing its order to an incorrect address. The District Court rejected Mr. Reed’s request for equitable tolling and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Mr. Reed filed a pro se appeal. The Employment Law Clinic filed an amicus brief in support of his argument that the District Court erred in refusing to toll the filing period in light of the fact that Mr. Reed’s failure to file on time was the result of the court sending the key order to the wrong address. The case is now set for oral argument on October 5, 2021, and the 7th Circuit has asked the Employment Law Clinic, as amicus, to argue the case on behalf of Mr. Reed.