Prentiss Sullivan v. Centers for New Horizons, Inc. - State of Illinois

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Complainant to show her his program’s records and files, he toldher that he had no records and did no work.Because he has notdenied making those statements, Taylor’s statement standsunrebutted and must be accepted as true. See Koukoulomatis v.Disco Wheels, 127 Ill. App. 3d 95, 468 N.E.2d 477 (1st Dist.1984). In sum, it is overwhelmingly clear that Complainantcannot establish the second element of his prima facie case.Complainant fares no better with regard to the fourthelement.There is nothing in the record to raise a genuine issueof fact on whether similarly situated women were retained insteadof discharged.In the affidavit submitted with his response to Respondent’smotion, Complainant lists two women whom he believes were treatedbetter than he was. Most of that information, though, isinadmissible.Complainant alleges that Chrystal Kyles was offered a lesserposition after being removed for failure to meet contractguidelines.He also alleges that Kyles turned down that lesserposition and was then allowed to resign in lieu of discharge.Complainant also alleges that Carol Aka was offered a lesserposition before being allowed to resign.The affidavit gives noindication of the source of Complainant’s information.With regard to motions for summary decision, Supreme CourtRule 191 requires affidavits to be “made on the personalknowledge of the affiants.” There is nothing in Complainant’s12
affidavit to indicate how he knows about Kyles’s and Aka’sdepartures. Certainly, there is no proof of “personalknowledge.” A document attached to Complainant’s affidavitestablishes that Kyles was demoted, but does not explain thereasoning.Another document states that Aka resigned, but doesnot state either that she was offered another position or thatthe resignation was a forced alternative to discharge.In short,Complainant fails to offer admissible evidence to establish agenuine issue of material fact on whether Kyles and Aka weresimilarly situated.It should be noted that Complainant’s brief invests a greatdeal of space discussing his perception that women were treatedbetter than he was in the basic terms and conditions ofemployment.On the facts of the instant case, that discussion isof no value in establishing a case of sex discrimination.Complainant’s initial charge of discrimination alleged thatRespondent had discriminated against Complainant in the terms andconditions of his employment on the basis of his sex. On July 6,2000, IDHR dismissed the claim regarding unequal terms andconditions. Complainant did not appeal that dismissal. Thatclaim is therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata.SeeSteele and Venture Stores, Inc., ___ Ill. HRC Rep. ___,(1986SF0276, August 2, 1996). If there was no substantialevidence to support the allegations, mere repetition of thoseallegations is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material13
Page 3 and 4: 7. For 1999, Respondent was require
Page 8: The method of proving such allegati
Page 11: other words, Complainant does not c
Page 15: (1991CF2143, October 10, 2001).He f

Prentiss Sullivan v. Centers for New Horizons, Inc. - State of Illinois

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?