Opinion ID: 2825258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I started having a lot of pain during 2009, the

Text: year 2009, that year when I was up at Lake Street when we started doing a lot of tampering [sic]. 1Sweatt also brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2- 103, but those claims are not before us on appeal. No. 14-2451 3 Q. What time of year was it? A. What time of year? Q. Uh-huh—yes. A. Oh, like in the summer. Q. Somewhere in June or July or August? A. It might have been—I know it was—it was warm. It might have been before then. Q. So it could have been before June? A. Yeah. Q. And when you would use the claw bars back probably before June of 2009, you would notice the pain in your shoulder? A. Yes. Because when I would—when I would use the—use the claw bar, it was just—it was unbeara- ble, you know, I would, you know, try to—I called one of the guys, come over, you know, and give me a hand. Q. Did you seek medical attention at that time? A. See I—over the counter I was taking pain medi- cation because I didn’t want—I didn’t really want no time off work. During that same timeframe, Sweatt began experiencing pain in his hands. He attributed the cause of the hand pain to repetitive use of hydraulic tools and other hand tools. On November 19, 2009, Sweatt saw a medical professional to address the hand pain. His provider for that healthcare visit, Nurse Practitioner Valentin, entered the following note into Sweatt’s medical record: “complaining of bilateral hand pain. The patient has had pain in his hands for quite a while 4 No. 14-2451 now. He might have carpal tunnel syndrome. He does repetitive motion at his job.” Eleven days later, on November 30, 2009, Sweatt met with Dr. Coates. According to Dr. Coates, Sweatt first complained of hand pain, which he attributed to his work at Union Pacific, in May of 2009. Sweatt was a Trackman at the time. Upon examination, Dr. Coates believed that Sweatt was unable to perform the job of Trackman. We pay particular attention to these dates. They are significant because Union Pacific contends that Sweatt’s FELA claims2 are barred by the statute of limitations. To recap:  May / June 2009–Sweatt notices hand pain. He also describes experiencing “unbearable” shoulder pain. Sweatt requests coworkers to help him use claw bars.  Nov. 19, 2009–Sweatt sees Nurse Practitioner Valentin for bilateral hand pain.  Nov. 30, 2009–Sweatt sees Dr. Coates. Dr. Coates says Sweatt is unfit to perform the duties of Trackman. 2 Sweatt alleged nine theories of negligence against Union Pacific under the FELA. According to Sweatt, Union Pacific: (1) neglected to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work; (2) neglected to provide him with safe and proper tools; (3) neglected to provide him with the proper safety equipment; (4) neglected to inspect and maintain its equipment; (5) neglected to warn him about defective tools and equipment; (6) negligently created and permitted a dangerous and hazardous workplace condition; (7) neglected to adopt safe customs and practices; (8) neglected to adopt safe methods and procedures; and (9) committed other acts of negligence. These separate harms resulted, he alleged, in “permanent injuries to his shoulders, arms, hands and wrists and the bones, muscles, tissues, ligaments and internal parts thereof.” No. 14-2451 5  Nov. 30, 2012–Sweatt files suit. Given this series of events, the district court agreed with Union Pacific. It ruled the claims time-barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations, 45 U.S.C. § 56, and granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific. That brings us to Sweatt’s age- and race-based discrimination claims. These claims flow from Sweatt’s rejection for the Security Officer position, a position he sought once he could no longer perform his manual-labor jobs. In January 2011, Union Pacific gave Sweatt an opportunity to participate in the Vocational Rehabilitation Program (“VRP”). This program facilitates job placement for railroad workers who are no longer able to perform their existing jobs to due injury or illness. VRP Counselors try to place workers in their previous jobs, in different jobs within Union Pacific, or in positions outside Union Pacific. During their placement efforts, VRP Counselors help workers develop skills in interviewing and résumé drafting. Sweatt seized the opportunity. When he learned of an open Security Officer position in the greater Chicago area, he expressed interest and applied. Union Pacific scheduled him for an interview in Omaha, Nebraska, where its corporate headquarters are located. Before Sweatt left, VRP Counselor Elizabeth Watson gave him a document that alerted him to areas of interest that could be discussed during the interview. The document, “Information requested on Personal History form for background check,” requested information pertaining to arrests, traffic citations, military service, family, education, and references. Watson discussed the form with Sweatt and generally helped him to prepare for the interview. 6 No. 14-2451 Sweatt arrived in Omaha on March 16, 2011. Before he began his interviews, he completed a “Personal History Statement.” This document was different from the form Watson had given him. Under a heading entitled “ARRESTS,” the form asked if he had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony offense. It also asked if he had ever been on probation or parole, and if he had ever been under indictment or charges for a criminal offense. The form then provided an admonishment: “A conviction may not disqualify you, but a false statement will.” Sweatt answered “no” to each of the questions. Then he met with Candace Girard, Director of Disability Management. She informed him that Union Pacific favors a candidate with integrity and honesty because a Security Officer is charged with guarding multi-million dollar vehicles. After his meeting with Girard, Sweatt met with Bruce Finger, Director of Internal Placement, and Ken Eultgen, Director of Homeland Security. Finger used an “Interview Questioner’s Form,” the same form he always used when interviewing candidates for the Security Officer position. In accordance with that form, Finger asked Sweatt if he had ever been arrested or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. Sweatt answered in the negative, and Finger recommended Sweatt for the position. Then Union Pacific ran a background check. Union Pacific first conducted an “eVerifile” criminal report, which it runs on all prospective employees. That report returned a clean record. The background check did not stop there, however. When someone applies for a position in the police deNo. 14-2451 7 partment,3 Union Pacific conducts a more thorough investigation. So Special Agent James Weller, Union Pacific (Northern Region), ran a “LEADS/NCIC” criminal check on Sweatt. LEADS/NCIC (Law Enforcement Agencies Data System / National Crime Information Center) is a computerized database that is maintained by the government. It facilitates background checks on all prospective employees in the Northern Region. Here, it indicated that Sweatt had been arrested in the Homewood-Flossmoor area of Illinois. The report disclosed a case number from the Flossmoor Police Department and a State ID number for the arrest. Agent Weller confirmed the arrest. He then contacted Sweatt’s former supervisor, Richard Johnson, who gave Sweatt a positive referral. Johnson stated that Sweatt earned an award for his hard work, never abused sick time, and never gave anyone a hard time. He recommended Sweatt for the job. After receiving a similar, positive referral from Sweatt’s former employer of fifteen years, Agent Weller conducted an in-person interview of Sweatt. During that interview, Agent Weller asked Sweatt if he had ever been arrested. Sweatt again said “no.” Agent Weller asked him that question at least three times, and each time Sweatt gave him the same answer—“no.” Armed with the background report, Agent Weller decided to confront Sweatt 3 According to Union Pacific’s website, the railroad police force dates to the mid-nineteenth century, “when the number of U.S. Marshals was insufficient to police America’s growing rail network.” See https://www.up.com/aboutup/community/safety/special_agents/index.ht m (last visited on July 24, 2015). 8 No. 14-2451 with the details of the arrest. He asked Sweatt if he had been arrested in Flossmoor, Illinois. Sweatt finally acknowledged that he had. He quickly called the incident a misunderstanding, noting that the judge tossed the case out of court. He al- so added that it was a domestic dispute, and that he remained friends with everyone involved. Agent Weller summarized the results of his background investigation and sent his final report to Jack Harris, Northern Division Captain. Upon review, Harris emailed Finger to memorialize his concerns about the inconsistencies in Sweatt’s responses to the arrest questions. Finger, who had previously recommended Sweatt, e-mailed Mark Kalinowski, Regional Director, asking for his opinion on the matter. Kalinowski responded with a negative endorsement on Sweatt’s candidacy. In his view, Sweatt did not deserve the Security Officer position due to his untruthfulness related to the prior arrest. Recall Girard’s notice: Union Pacific was looking for a person with integrity and honesty. Finger subsequently notified Sweatt in writing that he was disqualified for the Security Officer position. The form letter, dated March 31, 2011, stated that Sweatt’s “background investigation has disclosed information and circumstances that disqualify you as a candidate for Security Officer.” Sweat subsequently filed suit against Union Pacific, alleging, in part, age- and race-based discrimination. In support of his case, Sweatt offers nineteen comparators who have been offered the position of Security Officer since 2009. He argues that these comparators reveal a less-than-level playing field when it comes to competition for the Security Officer position. In his view, the case boils down to questions of No. 14-2451 9 credibility, so his claims should have survived summary judgment. There is more. Sweatt links the district court’s judgment against him to its case management procedure (“CMP”) regarding summary judgment. He argues that Judge Sara L. Ellis exceeded her authority by promulgating a CMP that prevents parties from filing separate statements of fact.4 In Sweatt’s view, this rule is inconsistent with Local Rule 56.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83. We unfurl this novel argument below.