ome Gk ak

retaliation for her complaint. Therefore, Teal cannot demonstrate that there is a causal link between

her discharge and her complaint of sexual harassment.

Even assuming Teal could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, she could not succeed

on summary judgment because of her failure to show that the Sun-Times’ legitimate articulated

reason for terminating her employment (that she violated the anti-harassment policy) was pretextual

“A plaintiff can establish pretext by showing either that a discriminatory reason more likely

motivated the employer or that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credence.” Debs v.

Northeastern Illinois Univ., 153 F.3d 390, 395 (7th Cir. 1998). An honest belief i in the non-

discriminatory reason offered by the decision-maker will be sufficient even if the: reasons are foolish,
trivial, or baseless. Debs, 153 F.3d at 396.

As stated earlier, the Sun-Times maintains that it terminated Teal because she violated the

Sun-Times’ reason for her termination is pretextual because there i is no > evidence that “Teal had

engaged in any prohibited conduct subsequent to the [Chris Green] investigation in n February 1999,”
(Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Surnm. J. at 7.) However, Teal readily admits that she engaged in

“sexual banter and joking with co-employees” after the Chris Green investigation. (PI.’s Mem.

.

Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 7.) As discussed earlier, this conduct clearly violates the Sun-Ti:

anti-harassment policy. Teal has not presented any evidence that shows that the Sun-Times did not

honestly believe its reason for terminating her. The other employee involved in the exchange of

salacious voicemails, Kathy Burke, was also discharged. (Chicago Sun-Times’ Mem. Law Supp.

Mot. Summ. J. at 9.)

-13-



an individual . . . and displays in the workplace of sexually suggestive objects or pictures.”

The Sun-Times hired Teal as a Senior Administrative Assistant in the Advertising
Department on March 10, 1997. (Def.’s 56.1 7.) Two times a week, Teal ate lunch in the Sun-
Times’ cafeteria with co-workers, including Advertising Administrator, Trina Cieply, Sales
Representative, Kathy Burke and Administrative Assistant, Janice Roberts. (Def.’s 56.18.) During
these lunches, sexual issues, sex, and “female things” were often discussed. (Def.’s 56.1 9.) Teal

and Burke discussed Burke’s lesbian relationship with a woman named Minnie. (Def.’s 56.1 17.)

They also discussed a couple of men Burke was dating. (Def.’s 56.1 417.) According to Burke, Teal
always steered lunch conversation to sex or sexual topics. (Def.’s 56.1 33.) On one occasion, while
at work, Teal gave Burke a coffee mug with a handle shaped like a penis. (Def.’s 56.1 9919, 18.) On
another occasion, Teal brought a T-shirt to work that depicted devils engaged in sexual activity.
(Def.’s 56.1 9.9.)

In February of 1999, a new employee, Collection Analyst, Chris Green, joined Teal’s lunch

group. (Def.’s 56.1] 10.) Teal began to make comments about Green’s sexual orientation. (Def.

56.1 § 10.) For example, Teal commented that Green looked and dressed like a man, that she
(Green) had a “masculine or dikish appearance” and that Green might be gay. (Def.’s 56.1 10.)
In late February 1999, Green complained to Human Resources ‘Administrator Jeanie Smyers
that Teal was harassing her. (Def.’s 56.1 4 11.) Green told ‘Smyers that Teal made comments about
Green’s sexuality, asked other employees if Green was homosexua,] and talked about Green’s sexual
orientation in front of other employees. (Def.’s 56.1 § 11.) Pursuant to the Sun-Times’ anti-
harassment policy, Smyers and Safety Manager, Sandy Wojtynek, immediately began an

investigation by speaking with Teal and other witnesses. (Def.’s 56.1 11.) Teal admitted that she

4.


eR

Asem TR

137.) In her report, Davidson also recommended that the Sun-Times terminate Teal and Burke for
violating the anti-harassment policy. (Def.’s 56.1 38, 39.) On September 14, 2000, the Sun-Times
discharged Teal for violating the anti-harassment policy. (Def.’s 56.140.) Teal was never told that

she was discharged in retaliation for complaining about the messages or sexual harassment. (Def.’s

56.1 40.)

Teal has stated that she believes that she was really retaliated against because she i: is black,
(Def.’s 56.1 9 41 .) Teal cannot explain why she believes that she \ was terminated because she is.
black. (Def.’s 56.1 9 41.) However, her charge of discrimination does not allege retaliation based :
on race. Wet. °s 56.1941.)

Teal testified that a white sales assistant named Alisa complained that a manager made a pass
at her. (Def.’s 56.1 942.) Teal believes that Alisa was promoted after being in her position for less
than six months. (Def.’s 56.1 42.) Teal understands that one must be employed for a year before _
being promoted or moved. ‘(Det s 56.1942.) Teal does not know, Personally, whether Alisa w was
promoted because someone made a pass at her and does not have any idea of ‘Alisa’ s job
performance or if she is a good worker. (Def.’s 56.1 ] 42.)

Prior to the time of her termination, Teal made copies of three confidential documents that
did not pertain to her. (Def.’s 56.1 443.) The first document Teal removed from Terri McCreary’s
office was McCreary’s acknowledgment form confirming her receipt of the Sun-Times’
Manager/Supervisory Manual. (Def.’s 56.1 944.) Teal made an unauthorized copy of the document
for herself when she made an authorized copy of the document for McCreary. (Def.’s 56.1 4 44.)
Teal did not tell anyone she had made a copy. (Def.’s 56.1 4 44.)

Teal also copied two confidential letters McCreary sent to Ted Rilea regarding a complaint

9.



rene ered

Human Resources would investigate her complaint. (Def.’s 56.1 4 19.)

The Sun-Times hired an outside human resources consultant, Deborah Terry of the Nash
Group, to conduct an independent investigation. (Def.’s 56.1 | 20.) On June 30, 1999, Terry
interviewed Teal and other witnesses, including Chris Green, Kathy Burke, Cynthia Newsome,
Joanie Harris, and Janice Roberts, about Teal’s complaint about the sexually explicit voicemail
messages. (Def.’s 56.1 {| 20.)

In her interview with Terry, Teal said that she found the messages “disturbing”. (Def.’s 56.1
21.) Teal also spoke to Terry about Chris Green’s complaint against her. (Def.’s 56.122.) Teal
told Terry that she believed that she had been singled out during that investigation because Teal,
Janice Roberts, Kathy Burke and Trina Cieply all made comments about Green’s sexual orientation.
(Def.’s 56.1 4 22.) . ; .

Terry then spoke with Burke, who admitted sending Teal the messages. (Def.’s 56.1 23)
Burke told Terry that she and Teal would talk about how funny the messages were and that Teal said
she listened to the messages at home and masturbated. (Def.’s 56.1 423.) Burke also told Terry that ;
Teal: (1) said she had phone sex with a city worker she was seeing and that he sent Teal sexually
charged voicemail messages, (2) hac forwarded one such message to Burke, (3) said she would tease
the city worker sexually over the phone, (4) said she had fantasies about using a whip and handcuffs
and wanted to be called “Mistress Debra,” (5) gave Burke a coffee mug with a handle shaped like
a penis, and (6) wore a t-shirt to work that depicted sexual activity. (Def.’s 56.1 24.)

Cynthia Newsome, a receptionist at the Sun-Times, told Terry that she had once worn a low-
cut blouse to work, and Teal had commented that it was a “Chris Green” shirt and that Green would

“eat or lick her up one side and down the other.” (Def.’s 56.1 25.) Trina Cieply told Terry that she

-6-



oa oen

commented on Green’s sexual orientation and that she made the statements mentioned above about
Green. (Def.’s 56.1 ] 12.) Other witnesses confirmed that Teal made comments about Green’s
sexual orientation. (Def.’s 56.1 4 13.)

Smyers and Wojtynek met with Teal and discussed appropriate and inappropriate conduct
in the workplace. (Def.’s 56.1 {| 14.) Teal admitted that her comments were inappropriate and that
she violated the Sun-Times’ anti-harassment policy. (Def.’s 56.1 J 14.) They warned Teal that she
needed to be sensitive and careful about her comments at work about other employees, that this type
of conduct could not continue, and that her employment could be in jeopardy if she engaged in any
other inappropriate behavior. (Def.’s 56.1 { 14.)

On September 17, 1998, September 23, 1998, and October 28, 1998, Kathy Burke forwarded
to Teal three voicemail messages that Burke’s female partner left for her while performing sex acts.
(Def.’s 56.1915.) Teal saved these messages on her Sun-Times’ voicemail until she was terminated
by the Sun-Times and recorded them on a tape recorder from her voicemail while at home. (ef’s
56.1 16.) Teal did not ask Burke to stop sending the messages nor did she report the messages to
her supervisor. (Def.’s 56.1 16.) Teal did not mention the messages when she was questioned by
Human Resources about Chris Green’s complaint. After receiving the messages, Teal continued to.
have lunch with Burke and talk with her in the halls. (Def.’s 56.1 18.) Burke’s husband also helped
Teal with a financial problem. (Def.’s 56.1 J 18) ves ee

In June 1999, Teal told her supervisor, Terri McCreary, about the voicemail messages.
(Def.’s 56.1 § 19.) McCreary suggested that Teal speak ‘with Human Resources and the Vice
President of Advertising, Larry Green. (Def.’s 56.1 4 19.) After meeting with Teal, Larry Green

called Ted Rilea, Vice President of Human Resources. (Def.’s 56.1 19.) Rilea told Teal that

5.



Burke told Davidson that, after receiving Burke’s forward messages, Teal forwarded messages to
her that Teal had received from a city worker. (Def.’s 56.1 933.) Teal encouraged Burke and others
to call him and tease him sexually. (Def.’s 56.1 § 33.)

Davidson also interviewed Cieply, who told her that Teal told Cieply, in a joking manner,
about a message Burke sent Teal. (Def.’s 56.1 934.) Cieply told Davidson that she believed Burke
sent Teal the messages because the two shared intimate details of their personal lives with each
other. (Def.’s 56.1 34.) Cieply also stated that Teal was preoccupied with Green’s and other
employees’ sexuality. (Def.’s 56.1 34.) According to Cieply, when Newsome was hired, Teal
asked whether Newsome had been hired “for Kathy”. (Def.’s 56.1 35.) Teal tried to set up Green
and Burke. (Def.’s 56.1 4 35.)

In her interview with Davidson, Roberts reported that she did not know anything about the
voicemails Burke forwarded to Teal. (Def.’s 56.1 9 36.) Roberts told Davidson that conversation
always turned to sexually related topics when Teal was present. (Def.’s 56.1 ] 36.) According to
Roberts, Teal instigated all lunch discussions about Green’s sexuality. (Def.’s 56.1 4 36.)

Atthe close of her investigation, Davidson concluded that Teal violated the Sun-Times’ anti-
harassment policy by (1) willingly participating in the exchange of sexually explicit voicemail
messages between herself and Burke, (2) forwarding her own sexually graphic voicemail messages
to other employees, and (3) her repeated comments about sexual matters and other employees’ sexual
orientation. (Def.’s 56.1 $f 37, 38.) Davidson also concluded that Burke violated the anti-
harassment policy by (1) sending sexually explicit voicemail messages to a co-worker and (2)
participating in the sexually explicit banter during lunch. (Def.’s 56.1 4] 39.)

Davidson included these conclusions in her report to Larry Green and Ted Rilea. (Def.’s 56.1

-8-


ib de ke

Be ala des ea oe aa _—

—

eaaaree

Mitte Order Form (6897)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

sol
ve Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah “than Assigned Sage
CASE NUMBER 00 C 7864 DATE 12/13/2001
CASE DEBRA C. TEAL vs. CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, INC
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
() Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above,]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon____—_ssetfor__ at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor___—_—aat
(6) oa Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor__——sat_—
(7) oa Trial[set for/re-set for] on____at
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to______at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) O General Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

motion for summary judgment [13-1] is granted.

aij [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

qo) [Other docket entry] Status hearing held. Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendant’s

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

wv | Docketing to mail notices, AY

Mail AO 450 form. : >

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Cos

date maited notice
courtroom:

LG deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clesk’s Office mating deputy initials



prove a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, Teal must show that: qd) she engaged in

statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and 6) there is a

causal link between the protected expression and the adverse employment action. Kersting, 250F.3d

at 1117. ; ce tn acne

Teal has established the first two elements of a prima facie case of retaliation: she engaged

in statutorily protected expression when she complained of sexual harassment, and she suffered

adverse employment action when her employment with the Sun-Times was terminated, However, ;
Teal cannot establish that there is a causal link between her complaint that she was being sexually
harassed and her termination.

There must be a causal link between the disciplinary actions and the termination. See
Sweeney v. West, 149 F.3d 550, 557 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that “the employer's adverse action —_
[must] follow[] fairly soon” after the employee’s protected expression to establish the: required nexus
for retaliation in violation of Title VI). But while timing is “an important clue to causation .. . [it]
does not eliminate the need to show causation.” Bermudez v. TRC Holdings, Inc., 138 F.3d 1176,
1179 (7th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). “In order to demonstrate the ‘causal link,’ [Teal] must
demonstrate that [the Sun-Times] would not have taken the adverse action ‘but for’ the protected
expression.” McKenzie v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 92 F.3d 473, 483 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Klein v.
Trustees of Ind. Univ., 766 F.2d 275, 280 .

Teal cannot demonstrate that the Sun-Times would not have terminated her “but for” her /
complaint about sexual harassment. The Sun-Times states that it discharged Teal because she
engaged in conduct that violated its anti-harassment policy. ‘Teal argues that the anti- k-havasement

policy “only prohibits sexual harassment, not discussions regarding sex by co-workers who consent

-1l-


McCreary had about another employee. (Def.’s 56.1 § 45.) These documents were stored on
McCreary’s computer. (Def.’s 56.1 45.) Teal did not tell anyone at the Sun-Times that she was
copying these letters, and she did not ask for permission to copy them. (Def.’s 56.1 45.)

It is the policy of the Sun-Times to terminate any employee who steals company property.
(Def.’s 56.1 9 46.) Had Davidson known that Teal secretly copied and retained three confidential
documents that did not pertain or belong to her, she would have terminated Teal’s employment.
(Def.’s 56.1 ] 46.) The Sun-Times has terminated at least nine individuals for theft of company
property.

DISCUSSION

Defendant the Sun-Times moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff Teal’s claim that the
Sun-Times violated Title VII by discharging her in retaliation for complaining about sexual
harassment. The Sun-Times argues that summary judgment is proper because: (1) Teal cannot
establish a causal connection between her complaint of harassment and her termination; and (2) even.
if Teal could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, she cannot show that the Sun-Times’ reason
for her termination was a pretext for retaliation.

Title VII prohibits discrimination against an employee “because he has opposed any practice
made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this
subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

Plaintiff has offered no direct evidence of retaliation. A retaliation claim may be proved by
indirect evidence under the burden-shifting method of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792 (1973). Kersting v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 250 F.3d 1109, 1117 (7th Cir. 2001). In order to

-10-


via tiie,

ea. ki lie

heard the blouse comment and told Teal to stop it. (Def.’s 56.1 { 25.)

Janice Roberts told Terry that she also heard Teal’s comment about Newsome’s blouse.

(Def.’s 56.1 126.) Roberts also said that Teal forwarded to her a vulgar message Teal had received

from a city worker. (Def.’s 56.1 ] 26.) Chris Green, Roberts, and Cieply all told Terry that Teal
made inappropriate sexual comments at work. (Def.’s 56.1 { 27.)

At the conclusion of her investigation, Terry drafted a report that recommended that Burke
and Teal be terminated for violation of the Sun-Times’ anti-harassment policy. (Def.’s 56.1 28.) :

The Sun-Times then conducted its own investigation through in-house counsel, Pamela
Davidson. (Def.’s 56.1 29.) After speaking with Terry and reviewing Terry’s report, Davidson
interviewed Green, Roberts, Cieply, Newsome, Burke, and Teal, as well as some additional
witnesses between August 24, 1999 and September 14, 1999. (Def.’s 56.1 429.)

Davidson questioned Teal about the voicemail messages she received from Burke. (ef’s

56.1 430.) Teal mentioned Chris Green’s complaint of harassment against her. (Def.’s 56.1 431.)

Teal told Davidson that she felt she had been singled out because other employees made similar _

comments about Green. (Def.’s 56.131.) Teal admitted to Davidson that she made the comments
of which Green complained. (Def.’s 56.1 4 31.) _
In her interview with Davidson, Burke admitted that she sent the messages to Teal but stated
that she had done so because Teal told her Teal was fascinated with her lesbian relationship. (ef. ’s
56.1 $32.) Burke told Davidson that Teal had requested more graphic messages after receiving the
first one. (Def.’s 56.1 § 32.) Burke also told Davidson that Teal said that she masturbated while
listening to the messages at home. (Def.’s 56.1 [32.) According to Burke, she and Teal laughed _

about the messages, remained close friends, and continued to interact at work. (Def.’s 56.1 { 32.)

-7-



sic i

oa

ae

The Sun-Times publishes a daily tabloid newspaper with a circulation of approximately

488,000 newspapers daily and 427,000 on Sunday. (Def’s 56.1 | 3.) The Sun-Times employs
approximately 1,200 individuals at its corporate headquarters, located in Chicago, Illinois. (Def.’s

56.1 94.) The Sun-Times has a Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy, which is posted

on various bulletin boards throughout the company, including in the lunch room, human resources
department, other departments such as the advertising department, and some bathrooms. (Def.’s 56.1
415.) In October 1998, the Sun-Times redistributed its anti-harassment policy to its employees.

(Def.’s 56.14.) Teal received a copy of the policy. (Def.’s 56.1 ] 6.)

Jenin

The anti-harassment policy states, “If you have complaints or persone knowledge of sexual

avons tai sen

or discriminatory harassment, you should immediately report such conduct to your supervisor. Tf this

is not appropriate, report such conduct to the Vice President or Senior Vice President of your

department or Senior Vice President of Human Resources.” (Def.’s 56.16.) The policy also

that it is the Sun-Times’ policy that “no adverse actions shall be taken against any employee for

resisting or reporting sexual or discriminatory harassment.” ” Def.’ Ss 56. 196.) The policy Prohi its

“Tujsing any sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, or other discriminatory epithets to or about another

employee.” (Davidson Decl. Ex. A at 1.) The policy describes sexually harassing conduct as

“repeated offensive sexual jokes, language, epithets .

graphic verbal commentary about an

individual’s body, sexual prowess or preference . ‘sexually degrading or vulgar words to describe

mind. All 56.1 responses which fall into this category shall be deemed admissible.

Plaintiff’s Additional Statement of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)
refers solely to Plaintiff's Affidavit. Defendant has pointed out some discrepancies between
Plaintiff's deposition testimony and her affidavit. Plaintiff has offered no explanation for the
discrepancies. Thus, the paragraphs of Plaintiff’s statement of facts that contradict her deposition
testimony will be disregarded.

-3-


eke ili i a all

ecrcaeaes

Teal also argues that the statements by the witnesses in Terry’s and Davidson’s reports are
hearsay and should not be allowed in this motion for summary judgment. However, in determining
whether the Sun-Times’ reason for discharging Teal is pretextual, the proper inquiry is not whether
Teal actually did or said the things the witnesses charge her with but whether the Sun-Times honestly
believed that she did. Roberts v. Separators, Inc., 172 F.3d 448, 452 (7th Cir. 1999), Therefore,
these statements are admissible to show the state of mind of the responsible employees of the Sun-
Times.

Teal has not presented any evidence that the Sun-Times did not reasonably believe that she
said and did the things that the witnesses said she did, Teal has also not presented any evidence that ;
suggests that the Sun-Times was unreasonable in its reliance on these statements, Furthermore, Teal
admits some of the conduct that the witnesses accuse her of: the comments about Chris Green’s
sexual orientation, displaying the T-shirt depicting devils engaged in sexual activity at work, giving
Burke a mug with a handle shaped like a penis, and engaging in sexual banter at lunchtime. This
type of conduct was specifically prohibited by the anti-harassment policy.

Thus, Teal has offered no evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that the Sun-
Times did not honestly believe its proffered reason for terminating her employment. The Sun-
Times’ termination of Teal represented a reasonable business decision based on Teal’s violation of
the anti-barassment policy. Courts “do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an
entity’s business decisions.” Wolf v. Buss (America), Inc., 77 F.3d 914, 920 (7th Cir. 1996).

Since the Court is granting the Sun-Times summary judgment on Teal’s substantive
retaliation claim, the Court need not reach the issue of whether the Sun-Times is entitled to summary

judgment on the scope of her remedies.

-14-



a el cal

Meme Hh a

‘Inc, 47108. 242, 254-56 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. “Zenith Radio Corp. 475 U.S. 574,

..” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Thus, although the moving party on a
motion for summary judgment is responsible for demonstrating to the court why there is no genuine
issue of material fact, the non-moving party must go beyond the face of the pleadings, affidavits,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file to demonstrate through specific

evidence that there remains a genuine issue of material fact and show that a rational jury could return

a verdict in the non-moving party’s favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-27; Anderson v Liberty Lobby,

canes

586-87 (1986); Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 923 (7th Cir, 1994),
Disputed facts are material when they might affect the outcome of the suit. First Ind, Bank

v. Baker, 957 F.2d 506, 507-08 (7th Cir. 1992). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment,

a court must view all inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light m most favorable to the
opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48; Popovits v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 185 F, 3d 716,

731 (7th Cir. 1999). However, a metaphysical doubt will not suffice. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586.

If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative or is no more than a scintilla,

summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-250.

BACKGROUND

The undisputed facts taken from the Parties’ Local Rule 56.1(a) & (b) statements of material

facts (referred to herein as “Pl.’s 56.1” and “Def.’s 56. Py! and exhibits : are as follows.

' Plaintiff has objected to some paragraphs of the Defendant’s Rule 56.1 statement on the
basis that they rely on hearsay testimony. These objections neither admit nor deny Defendant’s
statements. The statements are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to establish the
Defendant’s state of mind in its decision to terminate Plaintiff. Scherer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.,
975 F.2d 356, 358 n.2 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding reports of sexual harassment by other employees
are admissible to show a decision-maker’s state of mind or good faith belief for terminating
plaintiff's employment). Therefore, the statements are admissible to show Defendant’s state of

-2-



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,

EASTERN DIVISION
)
DEBRA C. TEAL, ) ;
) pee 2 4 700
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 00 C 7864
)
v. ) The Honorable John W. Darrah
)
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Debra C. Teal (“Teal”) filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Chicago Sun-
Times (“the Sun-Times”) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VIT”), as amended
42U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., by discharging her after she complained of sexual harassment. The Sun-
Times moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, claiming that
Teal cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation or prove that its reason for her discharge is a
pretext for retaliation.

For the reasons that follow, Chicago Sun-Times’ Motion for Summary Judgment [13] is
granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there remains no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Cincinnati Ins. Co.
y. Flanders Elec. Motor Serv., Inc., 40 F.3d 146, 150 (7th Cir. 1994). “One of the principal purposes

of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses

Ib

-1-


to such conversations.” (P1.’s Mem. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ, J. at 5.)

Itis undisputed that the anti-harassment policy prohibited the very conduct that Teal admitted
doing and that other employees disclosed. The anti-harassment policy specifically prohibited making
comments about another employee’s sexual orientation; repeated sexual jokes, language, or epithets;
graphic verbal commentary about another employee’s sexual preference; sexually degrading words
used to describe another; and displaying sexually suggestive objects or pictures, There is no genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Teal violated the anti-harassment policy.

Teal admitted that: (1) she often engaged in lunchtime conversations about sex; (2) she used
a sexually degrading word to describe Chris Green’s appearance, “dikish”; and (3) she displayed
sexually suggestive objects or pictures by giving Burke a coffee mug with a handle shaped like a
penis and wearing a T-shirt to work that depicted devils engaged in sexual activity.

Furthermore, other employees related to Davidson, in the course of the investigation, that
Teal had engaged in other inappropriate conduct that violated the anti-harassment policy. According
to the witnesses in Davidson’s investigation, Teal forwarded sexually explicit voicemail messages
that she had received to other employees, had phone sex at work, steered lunchtime conversation to
sexual topics, and commented that another employee’s blouse was a “Chris Green blouse” and that
Green would “eat or lick [the employee] up one side and down the other.” :

Moreover, Teal has not presented any evidence of retaliation besides the timing of her
discharge. Teal has not presented any evidence that would suggest that her discharge was connected
to her complaint of sexual harassment rather than her violations of the Sun-Times’ anti-harassment
policy. Furthermore, the fact that other employees, Chris Green and Alisa, made complaints of

sexual harassment and were not terminated undermines Teal’s assertion that her termination was in

-12-


CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Chicago Sun-Times’ Motion for Summary Judgment [13] is

granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jt . Darrah, Judge
ited States District Court
Date: AICO f

-15-