IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JERRY BEAL, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 vs. ) Case No. 20 C 2797

 ) 

PACIFIC RAIL SERVICES, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

Jerry Beal has sued his employer, Pacific Rail Services, Inc., for violations of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Beal alleges that Pacific Rail subjected him to a 

hostile work environment and discriminated against him because of his race. Pacific

Rail has moved for summary judgment on all of Beal's claims. For the reasons below, 

the Court grants Pacific Rail's motion.

Background

The following facts are undisputed except where otherwise noted. Pacific Rail is 

a railroad contractor that manages the loading process at rail yards across the United 

States. Beal is African American and has been employed with Pacific Rail since 2001, 

and he currently works as a crane operator. 

Over the course of his employment, Beal has been involved in several disputes 

with both Pacific Rail and his union. Pacific Rail terminated Beal in 2008 for 

insubordination but reinstated him two years later as part of a settlement agreement 

among Beal, his union, and the company. Beal also received a $1,000 settlement from 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:388
2

Pacific Rail in 2011, but the basis for that settlement is unclear. In 2012, Beal filed a 

wrongful discharge claim against Pacific Rail that was ultimately dismissed, and in 2014 

he brought a discrimination charge against his union with the National Labor Relations 

Board. Shortly after suffering a workplace injury in 2016, Beal filed a claim with the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration against Pacific Rail. That claim was 

also dismissed. 

Steven Whalen, a white coworker of Beal's, acted aggressively toward Beal while 

on the job in June 2016. Beal and Whalen were both driving for work-related purposes, 

and Whalen repeatedly steered his hostler truck to cut Beal off. This forced Beal to 

swerve out of the way to avoid an accident. Whalen also yelled at Beal over the trucks'

radio communication system and stated that Beal should be scared. Whalen did not 

reference Beal's race during this confrontation.

Pacific Rail investigated the incident after Beal reported it to his manager. It 

interviewed and collected written statements from Whalen and other employees, and it 

also attempted to interview Beal. Though Beal refused to answer any questions without 

counsel, Pacific Rail determined from other evidence that Whalen was at fault. It issued 

Whalen a "last chance" letter, which prohibited him from retaliating against Beal and 

from communicating with him unless necessary for work. The letter also stated that 

Whalen would be disciplined and possibly terminated if his behavior continued.

Pacific Rail also issued a letter to Beal in which it explained that other evidence

substantiated his allegations against Whalen. The letter stated that Pacific Rail could 

not conclude that Whalen's actions were based on Beal's membership in a protected 

class. Rather, Pacific Rail believed that Beal and Whalen's conflict resulted from 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:389
3

Whalen's previous testimony in an arbitration between Beal and the company. The 

letter instructed Beal to have minimal communication with Whalen and to inform the 

company if Whalen harassed him further. It apparently is not possible for Beal and 

Whalen to avoid seeing each other because of the size of the rail yard, but there have 

been no further confrontations between them since Pacific Rail's investigation.

In early 2017, an unknown individual left multiple copies of a Facebook post by a 

white employee, Jim Wilkie, in the employee locker room. Wilkie wrote the post while 

he was temporarily working in Georgia, and former employee Rodney Strauss 

responded to it on Facebook as follows:

WILKIE: some people here are really starting to work my last fuckin nerve. 

Motherfuckers can't be that stupid, can they? This nigga need to get back 

home to someone, been too damn long

STRAUSS: Lets handle that nigga will

WILKIE: you always got my back hoss

Def.'s Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Stat., Ex. K, Jim Wilkie's Facebook post (dkt. no. 46-3). 

Upon learning of the Facebook post from another employee, Pacific Rail 

investigated the incident. Wilkie admitted that he wrote the post and stated that he had 

intended for it to be a communication between himself and Strauss. Wilkie also stated 

that he used the racial slur in referring to himself and his frustration at staying in 

Georgia.

Pacific Rail granted Wilkie's request to apologize to his coworkers for the post, 

and it suspended him for three days for violating its anti-harassment policy. The 

company was unable to determine which employee disseminated copies of Wilkie's post 

in the employee locker room. Beal spoke to two managers about Wilkie's post and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:390
4

expressed his belief that Pacific Rail was not properly disciplining Wilkie, but he did not 

report this to the particular supervisors designated by the company's policy. Neither 

Beal nor Pacific Rail experienced any further issues with Wilkie after his suspension.

In March 2017, Terminal Manager Mark Bolz issued Beal a warning for taking an 

unauthorized forty-minute break. The parties dispute whether Pacific Rail allowed Beal 

to review the video evidence of this incident. Beal admitted that the warning did not 

lead to further discipline or a suspension, but he believes Pacific Rail may have docked 

his pay for those forty minutes (he offers no evidence to support this, however). In the 

section of Beal's EEOC charge concerning this incident, he alleged that Pacific Rail 

treated Whalen and Wilkie more favorably under similar circumstances. During his 

deposition, Beal clarified that he was referring to the driving incident and the Facebook 

post when he mentioned Whalen and Wilkie. Pacific Rail issued similar warnings to at 

least five other employees for the same violation, four of whom were not African 

American. 

In July 2017, Beal received a $1.50 increase in his hourly pay. The parties 

dispute whether he qualified for the pay increase earlier, in April 2017. The only 

evidence of Beal's qualifications is a July 20, 2017 certificate stating that he completed 

the necessary training. Beal testified that he heard rumors of his coworkers receiving

pay raises earlier than he did, but he was unable to identify those employees or state 

how many such individuals there were.

In August 2017, Beal filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and IDHR. 

He claimed that he suffered harassment because of Wilkie's Facebook post and 

discrimination because of the verbal warning and allegedly belated pay increase. Beal 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:391
5

did not specifically mention the driving incident with Whalen in his EEOC charge. The 

agencies issued a right to sue letter in January 2020, and Beal timely filed this suit in 

April 2020.

Discussion

To succeed on its motion for summary judgment, Pacific Rail must show that

"there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact 

exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party." Hanover Ins. Co. v. N. Bldg. Co., 751 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). When deciding a 

summary judgment motion, courts must "construe all inferences in favor of the party 

against whom the motion under consideration is made." Cremation Soc'y of Ill., Inc. v. 

Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 727, 869 F.3d 610, 616 (7th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 

Although "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties" is 

insufficient to preclude summary judgment, courts should apply the standard with 

special scrutiny to employment discrimination cases, which often turn on the issues of 

intent and credibility. See Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc., 209 F.3d 687, 692 

(7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247).

A. Racially hostile work environment claim

In count 1 of the complaint, Beal alleges that Pacific Rail violated Title VII by

subjecting him to a hostile work environment because he is African American. 

"Subjecting an employee to a hostile work environment counts as an adverse action 

('unlawful employment practice') within the meaning of Title VII's prohibition of race 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:392
6

discrimination in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)." Gates v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 

916 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2019). Specifically, a plaintiff must show that "(1) he was 

subject to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on race (or another 

protected category); (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive to a degree that 

altered the conditions of employment and created a hostile or abusive work 

environment; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability." Id. (quoting Robinson v. 

Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 828 (7th Cir. 2018)). 

When a plaintiff "claims coworkers alone were responsible for creating a hostile 

work environment, he must show that his employer has been negligent either in 

discovering or remedying the harassment." Williams v. Waste Mgmt. of Ill., Inc., 361 

F.3d 1021, 1029 (7th Cir. 2004). An employer is not liable "if it takes prompt and 

appropriate corrective action reasonably likely to prevent the harassment from 

recurring," and "a prompt investigation is the 'hallmark of a reasonable corrective 

action.'" Porter v. Erie Foods International, Inc., 576 F.3d 629, 636 (7th Cir. 2009)

(internal citations omitted). "In assessing the corrective action, our focus is not whether 

the perpetrators were punished by the employer, but whether the employer took 

reasonable steps to prevent future harm." Id. at 637. "There is no question that a 

'stoppage of harassment shows effectiveness,'" but it "is not the sole factor to be 

considered" because an employer's response "may be [reasonably] calculated even 

though the perpetrator might persist." Id. (quoting Adler v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 144 

F.3d 664, 676 (10th Cir.1998). 

The parties do not dispute that Beal experienced unwelcome harassment, but 

even if he can show that the harassment was because of his race and sufficient to 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:393
7

create a hostile work environment, Beal has failed to establish any basis for employer 

liability. Beal does not dispute that Pacific Rail promptly investigated both the driving 

incident and the Facebook post and reprimanded the employees responsible.

1 

The record shows that as part of the investigation into the driving incident, Pacific 

Rail gathered documents, interviewed Whalen and other employees, and issued 

Whalen a "last-chance" letter. The letter instructed Whalen not to communicate with or 

retaliate against Beal, and it warned that he would be disciplined and possibly 

terminated if his behavior continued. As for the Facebook post, Pacific Rail confirmed 

that Wilkie had written it, but it was unable to determine which employee left copies in 

the locker room. The company allowed Wilkie to publicly apologize to the other

employees for the post, and it suspended Wilkie for three days for violating the antiharassment policy. Because Pacific Rail acted upon learning of both incidents and 

disciplined the responsible parties, its actions are sufficient to constitute the "prompt 

investigation" that the Seventh Circuit has held is a "hallmark of a reasonable corrective 

action." Porter, 576 F.3d at 636. In addition, Beal reported no further issues with either 

Whalen or Wilkie after the investigations concluded. The absence of further 

harassment alone may not be dispositive, but combined with the company's prompt 

1 As Pacific Rail points out, Beal did not mention the driving incident in his EEOC 

charge. The driving incident does not "describe the same conduct and implicate the 

same individuals" as the incidents Beal that does mention in his EEOC charge, as none 

of those other events involved Whalen. Peters v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 

307 F.3d 535, 550 (7th Cir. 2002). Beal therefore cannot base his Title VII claim on this 

incident because it is not "'like or reasonably related' to the EEOC charges," id., and he 

fails to address this issue in his response brief. He argues only that courts must 

account for the overall context of the workplace in evaluating a hostile work environment 

claim, but this incident would not support his claim even if the Court were to consider it. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:394
8

investigation and discipline of the culpable parties, it reflects that Pacific Rail's actions 

were reasonably likely to prevent future harassment. 

Beal argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether 

Pacific Rail's actions were sufficient. He contends that the company ought to have 

transferred Whalen to ensure physical separation, punished Wilkie more harshly, and 

investigated how African American employees felt about the Facebook post. Yet the 

basis for employer liability depends "not [on] whether the perpetrators were punished by 

the employer, but whether the employer took reasonable steps to prevent future harm."

Porter, 576 F. 3d at 637 (emphasis added). Beal states that Whalen's conduct and 

continued presence in the rail yard caused him to feel unsafe, but he offers no viable 

explanation of how a reasonable jury could find that Pacific Rail's actions were negligent 

or unreasonable given that Beal had no further confrontations with Whalen or Wilkie. 

Without more, Beal's contention that the company should have done more does not

establish the existence of a genuine factual dispute regarding its liability. The Court 

therefore grants summary judgment in favor of Pacific Rail on this claim. 

B. Race discrimination claims

To succeed on a Title VII claim, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case 

by showing that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he met the defendant's 

legitimate expectations, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) a 

similarly situated individual outside of the protected class received more favorable 

treatment. Khowaja v. Sessions, 893 F.3d 1010, 1014-15 (7th Cir. 2018); see 

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). If the plaintiff makes 

such a showing, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a "legitimate, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:395
9

nondiscriminatory reason" for its actions. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If the 

employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present evidence that the 

stated reason is a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 804.

The parties do not dispute that Beal is a member of a protected class and that he 

was meeting legitimate expectations. Beal argues that the warning about his 

unauthorized break and the delayed pay raise were adverse employment actions, but

even if that is the case, his claims cannot succeed because he has not offered evidence 

from which a reasonable jury could find that a similarly situated non-African American 

employee was treated better. 

Beal contends that Pacific Rail discriminated against him in issuing a warning for 

taking an unauthorized forty-minute break, but he provides no evidence that would allow 

a finding that the company treated other employees better. Beal cites only to the 

statement in his EEOC charge that Whalen and Wilkie were "treated more favorably 

under similar circumstances." Def.'s Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Stat., Ex. B, Charge of 

Discrimination, at 2 (dkt. no. 46-2). During his deposition, however, Beal explained that 

he was referring to Whalen and Wilkie solely in reference to the driving incident and 

Facebook post, and "not that—the 40-minute break, whatever it is." Def. Ex. BB, Beal 

Dep., at 69:8-10 (dkt. no. 46–4). Beal also does not dispute that at least five other 

employees were similarly warned for taking unauthorized breaks, four of whom were not 

African American. He argues that Pacific Rail has not shown that those employees 

were not similarly situated, but as the plaintiff, Beal bears the burden of offering 

evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find they were. See Skiba v. Ill. Cent. 

R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2018) ("Ultimately, plaintiff bears the burden of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:396
10

showing the individuals he identifies are similarly situated . . . . Because plaintiff fails to 

do so, his comparator argument must fail."). Because the only "evidence" of differential 

treatment is an allegation that Beal himself admits was mistaken, there is no basis for a 

reasonable jury to find that Pacific Rail discriminated against him in issuing the warning.

As for the pay raise, the parties dispute exactly when Beal qualified for the 

increase in his hourly wage. Yet even if he qualified for the raise some number of 

months before he received it, the only evidence of differential treatment he provides is 

his testimony that he heard rumors of other employees receiving the pay increase 

earlier. Beal was unable to identify any of these employees or offer evidence that they 

were similarly situated and outside his protected class, and he cites to no evidence 

other than rumor to support his contention. Although "uncorroborated, self-serving 

testimony may suffice to prevent summary judgment in some circumstances, [such] 

beliefs cannot create genuine issues of material fact when those beliefs lack a 

foundation of personal knowledge." Montgomery v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382, 

395 (7th Cir. 2010). Beal's claim therefore cannot succeed, as he has not offered 

evidence that would permit a finding that the timing of his pay raise constituted 

discrimination because of his race. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant's motion for summary 

judgment [dkt. no. 44] and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendant 

and against the plaintiff.

Date: December 20, 2022

________________________________

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY

 United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-02797 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:397