not do, and Pettito held a different supervisory position, on a different shift, than Messina.

Although Sigmatron invites this Court to make a factual determination as to the comparability of the
working conditions of all of these employees, questions of fact regarding comparative pay and
qualifications should be resolved by the jury. See EEOC v. Madison Community Unit School Dist.
No. 12, 818 F.2d 577, 580-83 (7th Cir.1987). Because a question of fact exists as to the
determination of a violation of the Equal Pay Act and, in turn, a claim of gender discrimination, I
am denying summary judgment as to Counts II and III of the complaint.

Constructive Discharge

Finally, Messina alleges that she was constructively discharged. To state a claim for
constructive discharge, Messina must show that she was forced to resign because her working
conditions were unbearable such that she was subjected to a discriminatory working environment.
EEOC vy. University of Chicago Hospitals, 276 F.3d 326, 331 (7" Cir. 2002). Working conditions
for constructive discharge must be even more egregious than the high standard for hostile work
environment. Tutman v. WBBM-TV/CBS, 209 F.3d 1044, 1050 (7" Cir. 2000). When examining a
hostile work environment claim, the court must consider both an objective element and a subjective
element. Gentry v. Export Packaging Co., 238 F.3d 842, 850 (7th Cir. 2001).

Taking the plaintiff's allegations as true, as I must for the purpose of this motion, Messina
clearly perceived her work environment as hostile, which meets the subjective element. To meet
the objective element of the test, the hostile work environment must be judged “from the
perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering ‘all the circumstances.””
Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc., 218 F.3d 798, 807 (7th Cir. 2000). Because of the number of
alleged incidents, the frequency with which they occurred, and the length of time within which they
occurred, a jury could find that the conduct alleged is sufficiently pervasive to constitute a hostile
working environment which may arise to the level needed to conclude that Messina was justified in

4


“directly contradicted her own earlier statements, without explaining the contradiction or attempting
to resolve the disparity.” Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co., 773 F.2d 857 (7th Cir. 1985). Messina has
not offered any explanation of this contradiction. One purpose of summary judgment is to weed out
unnecessary trials only if the truth can be ascertained among unfounded claims and defenses, and
hence, Messina should not be allowed to create issues of material fact by contradicting her own
testimony. For this reason, ] am granting summary judgment as to this claim.

Counts and J

Counts II and III of the complaint are, respectively, a claim of gender discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and an Equal Pay Act violation claim. Under
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), a plaintiff can establish a prima facie
case of sex discrimination under Title VII by showing that she: 1) belongs to the statutorily-
protected class of women employees; 2) performed her job satisfactorily; 3) suffered an adverse
employment action; and 4) was treated less favorably than similarly-situated male employees.
Hughes y. Brown, 20 F.3d 745 (7" Cir. 1994). The parties do not dispute that Messina belongs to a
statutorily-protected class and that she performed her work satisfactorily. Messina’s only allegation
of an adverse employment action based on sex is her claim that Sigmatron paid different wages
between men and women, and this is disputed by Sigmatron.

To establish a violation of the Equal Pay Act, Messina must prove that Sigmatron paid
different wages to employees of opposite sexes "for equal work on jobs the performance of which
requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions." See Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195 (1974). Messina identifies
two similarly situated employees to her own position: Eleazar Camacho and Leonard Pettito. It is
unclear in the record if these men are truly “similarly situated” to Messina with regard to their
working conditions because Camacho performed repairs on machinery, a task which Messina could

3


her claim of constructive discharge. Therefore, I am denying summary judgment with respect to

this claim.

Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim and
DENIED with respect to plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination, violation of the Equal Pay Act,
and constructive discharge.

ENTER:

L

| s B. al
Unifed States Distrt Cd budge

pate: _JUN 16 2003


Minute Qider Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of [linois

Name of Assigned Judge ae ° Sitting Judge if Other
. ‘or Magistrate Judge James B. Zagel than Assigned sudge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 3882 DATE 6/16/2003
CASE NANCY MESSINA vs. SIGMATRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaimtill, and (b) state briefly the mature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1d) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) QO Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief duc__
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on = ssetfor at
(6) OG Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on___ set for at
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2)
ao) «of (Other docket entry] Defendant’s motion (20-1) for summary judgment is granted/denied in
part. Enter summary judgment in favor of defendant with respect to plaintiff's sexual harassment
claim only.
(1) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.|
No notices required, advised in open court. Document
. Number
No notices required. umber o notices
Notices mailed by judge's stalf.
. JUN 17 2003
Notified counsel by telephone. die doshored
oY | Docketing to mail notices \ ,
Mail AQ 450 form apyisia’s'n espns inal
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. LUNOS d9 ri
courtroom : oy Nar bu
bw depuly’s €2 9 Wd
initials SEINE!
Datehif\redgde



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
NANCY MESSINA,
Plaintiff,

v. No. 01 C 3882

Judge James B. Zagel
SIGMATRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

CELTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 7
JUN 1 7 2003

Introduction

This is a sexual harassment and gender discrimination suit arising under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et. seqg., and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
Specifically, plaintiff, Nancy Messina, alleges that for four years, she was subjected to continuous
and pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination based on her gender by supervisors and
coworkers of defendant Sigmatron International, Inc. (“Sigmatron”). Sigmatron now moves
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) for summary judgment with respect to all counts.
Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if, evaluating the admissible evidence in the light most
favorable to Messina, there is no genuine issue of material fact and Sigmatron is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
255 (1986). Unless otherwise indicated, I accept Messina’s version and characterization of events.
Count I

Count I of Messina’s complaint, sexual harassment, is based solely on the conduct of one of
Sigmatron’s employees, Dave Colbert, a coworker who held a managerial position but never had

direct supervisory authority over Messina. Messina alleges that during the last four years at the

=


company she was repeatedly propositioned for sex and groped by Colbert. Sigmatron is liable for
coworker harassment if it is negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment. Hall v.
Bodine Electric Co., 276 F.3d 345, 356 (7th Cir. 2002). An employer’s legal duty in coworker
harassment cases will be discharged if it takes reasonable steps to discover and rectify acts of sexual
harassment by its employees. Although there is dispute as to whether Messina was aware prior to
her departure that the company had an anti-harassment policy, the evidence indicates knowledge of
a duty to inform her supervisors of such types of allegations. Additionally, Messina admits that she
was aware that a female coworker had reported similar allegations regarding Colbert to a human
resources supervisor, which leads me to believe that Messina had knowledge of such avenue for
recourse.

The Seventh Circuit has not required employers to institute formal anti-harassment policies
in order to avoid liability under Title VI. Jd. Instead, it has focused on whether an employer has a
reasonable mechanism in place for detecting and correcting sexual harassment. Jd. Even ifan
employer has a mechanism to detect and correct sexual harassment, the employee must have taken
advantage of it in order to succeed in her claim. Shaw v. AutoZone, Inc., 180 F.3d 806, 813 (7th
Cir. 1999). Sigmatron argues that Messina failed to take advantage of any mechanism. In
response, Messina points to her deposition in which she stated that she repeatedly informed
Supervisor, Todd Maberry, and Plant Manager, Vincent Ottaviano, of the harassment. However, in
her response to Sigmatron’s Interrogatory No. 9, which asked Messina if she had ever complained
to anyone at Sigmatron of Colbert’s alleged harassment, Messina stated that “[nJo complaint was
made as others had complained about Colbert and nothing was done.” Messina offers no evidence
to support the allegation that “nothing was done,” and her subjective belief that prior complaints
were ignored alone does not discharge her of the duty to take advantage of any mechanism used by
Sigmatron to address sexual harassment. Summary judgment should not be denied if a plaintiff has

2