# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 15, 2021 *

Decided December 17, 2021

Before

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge

CANDACE JACKSON

‐ AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

No. 21

‐ 1359

TRUDY TAYLOR,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v

.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

CITY OF CHICAGO and KAREN

SAFFOLD,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Norther n District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 18 C 7874

Matthew F. Kennelly,

J udge

.

O R D E R

Trudy Taylor was removed from two positions as a public school principal in

Chicago. She sued the Board of Education of the City of Chicago for, among other

things, breach of contract and violating wage laws. She also sued a supervisor

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1No. 21

‐ 1359 Page 2

individually for discriminating against her based on her race. The district court

concluded that Taylor lacked evidence to support her claims. It granted the defendants’

motion for summary judgment, denied Taylor’s motion for reconsideration, and

ordered Taylor to pay costs, despite her assertion of poverty. We affirm each of these

rulings.

I.

We recount the facts in the light most favorable to Taylor, noting dis puted facts

where relevant. See Swyear v. Fare Foods Corp.

, 911 F.3d 874, 877 (7th Cir. 2018). Taylor,

an African

‐ American woman, contracted with the Board to serve as the principal for

Jesse Owen s Elementary Community Academy, a school serving students in

kindergarten through third grade. Taylor’s contract ran from June 2012 to June 2016, but

it provided that the Board could remove her if the school closed or permanently merged

“into another attendance center.”

The Board discharged Taylor on June 30, 2013, when, according to the Board, it

closed Owens Academy and combined its attendance area with th at of nearby Samuel

Gompers Fine Arts Options Elementary School—until then, a fourth

‐ to

‐ eighth

‐ grade

school. The two school buildings continued to house the same grades and serve the

same student bodies but were co nsidered separate campuses of a single school. The

combined school was called Gompers at first, but later it was renamed Owens Academy

(when, precisely, is in dispute). Because it still served the same students under the same

name, Taylor disputes that the Owens Academy where she worked “closed.” But, in her

deposition, Taylor admitted that Owens permanently “merg ed with” Gompers

“because the two schools became one.”

Taylor then became an interim principal, and in June 2015, she was assigned

temporarily to George Washington Carver School. The Board considered Taylor (like

any interim principal) to be an at will employee with no contract. But Taylor asserts in

her affidavit that Krish Mohip, th en the deputy chief of the network of schools that

included Carver, “promised” her that she “should expect” to work there for “at least

one year.”

Soon after Taylor started, Karen Saffold became the chief of Carver’s school

network. Saffold had numerous critiques of Taylor’s jo b performance, and she and

Taylor had a contentious relationship. In late 2015, Taylor interviewed to become the

permanent principal at Carver. After she did not get the job, the Board removed herNo. 21

‐ 1359 Page 3

from her interim position on January 20, 2016. The Board asserts that it removed Taylor

because her performance was unsatisfactory and that Janice Jackson, then the Chief

Education Officer of Chicago Public Schools, made the final recommendation to the

Board to terminate Taylor. Taylor asserts that it was Saffold’s deci sion.

Taylor sued the Board for breaching her written employment contract to be the

principal of Owens Academy; breaching an implied contract to be the principal of

Carver School for one year; and violating the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act

by failing to pay her wages through June 2016. Taylor also sued Saffold in her

individual capacity under 42 U.S. C. § 1981 for violating her right of equal protection by

discriminating against her based on her race. Taylor’s several other claims, including

one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board and Saffold, are not at issue in this appeal,

so we need not elaborate on the m.

The district court entered summary judgment for the Board on all of Taylor’s

federal claims, as well as her state contract and Wage Act claims, but it declined to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other state

‐ law claims. The court deemed it

beyond dis pute that Owens Academy had merged “into” Gompers School—triggering

the contractual condition allowing the Board to fire Taylor—because Taylor stated in

her deposition that Owens permanently merged “with” Gompers. The court also

determined that Taylor failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact about whether she

had an implied contract with the Board for a one

‐ year post at Carver School, and that

Taylor could not proce ed against Saffold individually under § 1981. Later, the court

denied Taylor’s motion to reconsider its summary judgment ruling and granted the

Board’s motion for entry of a bill of costs, despite Taylor’s request to be excused due to

indigence.

II.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgme nt de novo. Johnson v.

Dominguez

, 5 F.4th 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2021). On appeal, Taylor first contends that the

court misinterpreted her deposition testimony to conclude that the Board did not

breach her Owens Aca demy contract. Admitting that Owens merged “with” Gompers,

she argues, is different from admitting that Owens merged “into” Gompers. She

states—citing no contractual definitions or Board materials—that “merged with” means

both schools remain open and become a single unit, while “merged into” means one

school ceases to exist because the other absorbs it. She further argues that the Board did

not merge Owens “into” Gompers because the Board’s written resolution to cl oseNo. 21

‐ 1359 Page 4

Owens did not contain the word “into”—in contrast to its resolution about another set

of schools that combined.

Taylor offers no evidence that there is a material distinction between a school

merging “with” and merging “into” another school. Under the contract—which the

parties agree is governed by Illinois law—the Board could discharge Taylor upon the

“closure of [Owens] or the permanent merger of [Owens] into another attenda nce

center.” Taylor’s interpretation—requiring that a school close for it to merge “into”

another school—is inconsistent with the disjunctive “or” and renders the separate

closure clause superfluous. See Land of Lincoln Goodwill Indus., Inc. v. PNC Fin. Servs.

Grp., Inc.

, 762 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2014 ) (Illinois courts avoid constructions that

render a provision superfluous). And even if her admission that Owens Acad emy

merged “with” Gompers School is not dispositive, there is no evidence to support

Taylor’s contention that a merger “into” nev er happened; Taylor offers only her

opinion. That is insufficient to dispute the Board’s evidence that there was a merger

because Owens Academy ceased to exist independently, its attendance area was

combined with that of Gompers, and the new combined school had a single principal.

Further, the Board’s resolution a nnouncing its plan to merge another set of

schools “into” each other does not help Taylor. As we have noted, she lacks evidence

that “into” and “with” require different meanings, and we are skeptical that the

contract compels such a distinction. Taylor’s argument that the Board acts differently

when it merges one school “into” another than it did he re does not change our view. A

single instance of using the word “into” hardly establishes a modus operandi. And in

the other resolution, the merger “into” occurred by combining the attendance areas of

the two schools. That is precisely what the Board did wi th Owens and Gompers. Yet

Taylor does not explain why one constitutes a merger “into” and the other a merger

“with.” In short, Taylor failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact over whether a

contingency allowing her termination—a permanent merger—occurred.

Taylor next argues that, for either of two reasons, summary judgment was

improper on her claim that the Board breached an implied contract to employ her at

Carver School for one year. First, she points to an I llinois statute providing that if a

school on probation (like Carver) fails to make improvements “after a maximum of one

year,” its principal may be fired. 105 ILCS 5/34

‐ 8.3. But this simply articulates one

consequence a school may face after poor academic performance; it does not guarantee

one year’s employment to th e principal of a school on probation. The statute has

nothing to do with the terms of em ployment for principals.No. 21

‐ 1359 Page 5

Second, Taylor argues that she had an implied one

‐ year contract because Mohip,

who offered her the position, had both the actual and apparent authority to form an

employment contract, and he did so when he said that she “should expect” to remain at

Carver for “at least one year.” To begin, Mohip had no act ual authority because, by

statute, only the Board can hire principals. See 105 ILCS 5/34

‐ 8.1. Further, under Illinois

law, a municipal entity (which includes the Board) cannot be bound based on the

apparent authority of an agent. Patrick Eng ʹ g, Inc. v. City of Naperville

, 976 N.E.2d 318,

330 (Ill. 2012). In any ev ent, Illinois courts presume that oral employment contracts are

at will unless the length of the contract is “clear and definite.” Robinson v. BDO Seidman,

LLP

, 854 N.E.2d 767, 770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). Here, the duration of th e purported

contract was not definite because Mohip’s statement that she “should expect” to be

principal for a certain period lacked certainty, and his assurance that the position would

last for “at least one year” did not set any specific length of time. See Wilder v. Butler

Mfg. Co.

, 533 N.E.2d 1129, 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (informal expressions of goodwill

and hope are not definite).

Taylor also contends that, under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act,

820 ILCS 115/1, the Board owes her wages fr om when it discharged her from Owens

and Gompers through the end dat es of her contracts. But Taylor’s claim fails because a

worker bringing a claim under the Act must show that she performed unpaid work

under a contract or agreement, and Taylor did no work at either school after she was

fired. See Enger v. Chi. Carriage Cab Corp.

, 812 F.3d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 2016). Unpaid

(earned) wages are not the same as front pay, a form of compensatory damages.

Next, Taylor argues that the district court incorrectly determined that she co uld

not sue Saffold in her individual capacity under § 1981. Although we have held that

§ 1981 does not permit suits against state actors in their official capacities, Campbell v.

Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty.

, 752 F.3d 665, 671 (7th Cir. 2014), we have not a ddressed

whether actions against state actors in their individual capacities are allowed. Taylor’s

claim fails either way. The standard of liability under § 1983 also applies to § 1981

claims. Sommerfield v. Knasiak

, 967 F.3d 617, 622 (7th Cir. 2020). And in deciding Taylor’s

§ 1983 claim, the district court correctly determined tha t Taylor presented no evidence

that similarly situated individuals who were not of her race or gender were treated

more favorably, nor did she submit other circ umstantial evidence that would allow a

reasonable inference that racial or gender discrimination motivated her removals.

See Johnson v. Advocate Health & Hosps. Corp.

, 892 F.3d 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2018).No. 21

‐ 1359 Page 6

Two issues remain. First, Taylor argues that the district court abused its

discretion when it denied her motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. But the court did not abuse its discretion because Taylor did

not submit newly discovered evidence, nor did she demonstrate a manifest error of law

or fact beca use no reasonable juror could find that the Board breached her Owens

Academy contract. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer

, 722 F.3d 939, 953 (7th Cir. 2013).

Second, Taylor argues that the court abused its discretion when it d eclined to excuse

her, based on her current indigence, from paying the Board’s costs. See Baker v. Lindgren

,

856 F.3d 498, 502 (7th Cir. 2017). But the court properly considered Rivera v. City of

Chicago

, 469 F.3d 631, 634–35 (7th Cir. 2006), which required it to assess not only

whether Taylor could pay costs now but also whether she could pay costs in the future.

Taylor, who represented to the district court that she was actively seeking new

employment, does no t explain why she could not be expected to pay the costs in the

future.

We have considered Taylor’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.

AFFIRMED