Randall Malkowski v. Illinois Department of Corrections

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denies the Illinois Department of Corrections’ motion for summary judgment in Randall Malkowski’s Title VII retaliation action. The court holds that a reasonable jury could find the claim timely under the continuing-violation theory and could find materially adverse employment actions and a causal connection between Malkowski’s protected report of sexual harassment and subsequent workplace treatment. The opinion also addresses the admissibility of several statements offered in support of the retaliation claims.

Holdings

1. The claim could not be foreclosed as untimely at summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that at least one act within the filing period contributed to the same continuing hostile and retaliatory work environment as the earlier conduct.
2. The alleged transfer to a nonadministrative, lower-paying role, berating by supervisors, disciplinary referrals and suspensions, repeated denials of time off, and combination of those actions were sufficient to create a triable issue on materially adverse action.
3. Malkowski presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue concerning whether his protected report of sexual harassment was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse employment actions.
4. Statements by IDOC employees concerning matters within the scope of their employment and related to the employment actions at issue were admissible as opposing-party statements and could be considered at summary judgment; an assertion based on unidentified hearsay concerning Officer Gordon was excluded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Malkowski's Title VII retaliation claim was time-barred because the alleged retaliatory acts before the 300-day filing period were discrete acts.
2. Whether a reasonable jury could find that IDOC subjected Malkowski to materially adverse actions under Title VII's antiretaliation provision.
3. Whether a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between Malkowski's protected activity and the alleged adverse employment actions.
4. Whether certain employee statements proffered by Malkowski were admissible as non-hearsay statements of an opposing party's employee.

Disposition

other