SARA L. ELLIS, United States District Judge.
The Cicero Public School District No. 99 (the "District") employed Dr. Jane Montes, who is of Mexican national origin, as the English Language Learning ("ELL") Director, where Donna Adamic and Michael Dziallo (collectively with the District, "Defendants") supervised her. After the District did not renew her contract for the 2011-2012 academic year, Montes filed suit against the District for national origin and associational national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and against Adamic and Dziallo for intentional interference with business expectancy. Defendants moved for summary judgment [134]. Because the Court finds issues of fact on Montes' discrimination claim, that claim must be tried by a jury. But because Montes could not have had a reasonable expectation of continued employment with the District, judgment is granted for Adamic and Dziallo on Montes' intentional interference with business expectancy claim.
The District, located in Cicero, Illinois, serves approximately 13,300 students. Of those students, approximately 90 to 95% are Hispanic and about 7,000 are ELL students. The District employs approximately 1,600 individuals, including 800 teachers, 200 program assistants, 70 to 80 administrators, and 100 clerical and support staff. Adamic was the District's Superintendent from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2014, having previously served as a principal of one of the schools in the District as well as the District's Assistant Superintendent for Student Services and for Educational Services.
The District employed Montes as its ELL Director from July 1, 2008 until June 30, 2011, entering into one-year contracts for each year of her employment with the District. Montes has a bachelor's degree
As the ELL Director, Montes had the following responsibilities:
Ex. T to Joint Stmt. at C# 99Montes.000014.
Karen Mulattieri, who is also of Mexican national origin, immediately preceded Montes as the District's ELL Director. From May 2008 to January 21, 2011, she served as the District's Assistant Superintendent for Student Services.
When Mulattieri was the ELL Director, the ELL program was under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services. When Mulattieri became the Assistant Superintendent for Student Services in May 2008, however, she requested that the program be transferred
In Montes' first evaluation for her performance during the 2008-2009 academic year, Mulattieri found that Montes met professional standards and had no areas of unsatisfactory performance. Mulattieri further noted that Montes had a "willingness to learn and put[] forth a great deal of effort on her own," was "a strong advocate for students and convey[ed] her beliefs to the educational community," and had "a strong sense of consensus building and collaboration with other programs and departments in order to maximize opportunities for students." Ex. 7 to Pl.'s Stmt. of Additional Facts at C# 99Montes.000049. Mulattieri did propose some areas of growth, including training in fiscal management, prioritizing tasks, delegating tasks, increasing knowledge of the ELL program, and better managing her clerical staff. The next year, in March 2010, Mulattieri again found that Montes met professional standards and had no areas of unsatisfactory performance. This time, Mulattieri included no suggested areas of growth.
The District had to report certain data to the ISBE on its students and its ELL program. In May or June 2010, upon reviewing the District's ELL data, Montes and Mulattieri determined that the data reported by the District had not properly recorded approximately 700 to 1,000 students who were the most proficient in English. Attempts to correct the error were not successful. The error meant that the ISBE considered the ELL program not to be meeting its targets, requiring the District to create improvement plans. Mulattieri blamed the error on Dziallo.
Apparently in response to the data entry error, at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, the District changed the data entry process. The change resulted in transferring data entry and review to the ELL administrative staff, which meant that Montes and her two program supervisors were responsible for the task. Mulattieri did not agree with this decision, as she believed it took Montes away from her other responsibilities as ELL Director. Further, supervision of Montes with respect to this data component of her job fell to Dziallo.
After the meeting with Adamic, Dziallo and Mulattieri met with Montes. Dziallo offered training support for the data issues. Mulattieri did not recall telling Montes that her contract may not be renewed, though she informed Montes that the situation was "serious" because it was Montes' third year in the District, which came with added expectations. Ex. G to Joint Stmt. at 134:9-16.
As instructed, Mulattieri also provided Montes with a written plan for improvement. To create the plan, Mulattieri drew from Montes' prior evaluations, focusing on three main issues: budget, vision, and supervision of clerical staff. Mulattieri first listed several areas that she viewed to be Montes' strengths: "[c]lear communication style," "[g]ood presentation skills," "[c]ollaborative with other directors," "[c]ollaboration with other departments," "[t]horough observations of teachers," and "[c]ommunication with parents/community." Ex. YY to Joint Stmt. at C# 99Montes.129626. Then she identified areas of growth: "[m]anagement of budget," due to several citations having been received in 2009; grant application improvement, to avoid having them returned for changes;
Over the next several months, Mulattieri observed Montes working on the items identified in the improvement plan. Dziallo helped train Montes on data entry to ensure there were no discrepancies between the District's recording method and the ISBE's system. Montes worked through the Christmas holiday to ensure the ELL data was accurate, thinking she had a deadline of January 2011 for that
In December 2010, Adamic determined that the entirety of the ELL program should be transferred to Dziallo's supervision. Around that time, Dziallo met with Montes and told her that her contract may not be renewed. Montes indicated that was the first time she was hearing the news. When Montes and Mulattieri spoke later that month, Mulattieri again informed Montes that the situation was serious and added that Dziallo did not see Montes' contract being renewed. Mulattieri subsequently resigned in protest. Although Dziallo had been discussed as Montes' new supervisor, Montes learned that Adamic would now be her ultimate supervisor. On January 3, 2011, Montes met with Adamic and Dziallo, discussing the improvement plan Mulattieri had put together in October, a department handbook Adamic wanted Montes to complete, and the ELL data. Adamic also recalls informing Montes during that meeting that if Montes' performance did not improve within sixty days, her contract would not be renewed.
Adamic and Dziallo evaluated Montes in March 2011. They evaluated her in the following six areas: facilitating a vision of learning; district culture and instructional program; management; collaboration with families and communities; acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and the political, social economics, and cultural context, and following ISBE regulations. Adamic and Dziallo rated Montes' overall performance as not meeting professional standards and did not recommend her for continued employment as an administrator with the District. Montes received an unsatisfactory rating for the category of "[a]nalyzes and interpret[s] educational data, issues, and trends[,][u]nderstands the needs of the district, and seeks out resources to provide the necessary tools for all students." Ex. N to Joint Stmt. at 1. The review noted that Montes relied on others to clean up data and that data inconsistencies were found in the student databases. Adamic complained that Montes would send error messages about ELL data to a school's principal asking the principal or ELL teacher to correct the information instead of correcting the information herself, although Adamic acknowledged that Montes' actions were not "inappropriate." Ex. A to Joint Stmt. at 32:3-33:1. But this was not an area identified in the improvement plan and Dziallo had earlier praised Montes for the accuracy of the data.
Adamic and Dziallo also rated Montes as unsatisfactory in framing, analyzing, and resolving problems using appropriate problem solving techniques and decisionmaking skills. Mulattieri testified that before she resigned, she did not find Montes to have any issues in this area. Additionally, they found Montes' performance unsatisfactory in facilitating the design, implementation, and evaluation of curricular and other programs for continuous improvement. Adamic and Dziallo noted in the review that although Montes convened a committee to review materials, she did not clearly communicate with other administrators about the ELL program's mission. They criticized Montes for not formally presenting a new ELL program (REACH) to the curriculum directors and supervisors despite having allocated money in a grant to that program. Adamic believed that Montes was not prepared properly to implement the REACH program and was not able to justify the amount of training time that and other
Adamic and Dziallo also indicated in their evaluation that Montes had been asked to provide a plan for the ELL Department, with descriptions of the responsibilities of the program supervisors, and to create a procedures handbook, both tasks that Montes had not completed. Montes testified that she was working on the handbook with her staff and that she had submitted staff descriptions to Mulattieri, who provided them to Adamic.
The March 2011 evaluation also included criticism of Montes for relying on others for help with her expenditure reports even though she was in her third year as an ELL Director, a point in time when Adamic and Dziallo thought she should be training others. They noted that Montes "need[ed] to take more initiative in the responsibilities that she and her department handle," finding that she "lack[ed] self-direction" and "wait[ed] for others to tell her what she should be doing" instead of consistently exhibiting the leadership qualities required of a director. Ex. N to Joint Stmt. at 6. Although Adamic and Dziallo found Montes' collaborative approach to be a negative because they thought it showed a lack of initiative or decisiveness, Mulattieri considered it a positive because Montes was involving others in the process instead of dictating a course of action. Montes also found that her ability to present programs was hindered by the direction to communicate through Mulattieri, who would present Montes' suggestions to the other administrators. Adamic and Dziallo also criticized Montes for not having determined which special education students needed ELL services, a project she was tasked with in September 2010, although Adamic admitted she did not know what the timeline was on the project. Montes testified that she worked with the special education director and other program supervisors in October 2010 to propose a program to address the special education students needing ELL services, but that Adamic did not approve their program, halting progress. Adamic and Dziallo disapproved of Montes asking the special education teachers to identify the students needing ELL services. But Montes claims she did not return the files provided to her by the special education department to that department without reaching a conclusion, although one of the ELL program supervisors, Leticia Saucedo, testified that the ELL program did not act on the documents provided to it.
When asked to describe Montes' performance, Mulattieri testified that her staff presentations and memos were "excellent," and that Montes was visible, approachable and involved with her program and the teachers at the various schools in the District:
Montes' evaluation and Adamic and Dziallo's recommendation of non-renewal of her contract was presented to the District Board of Education (the "Board") at its March 10, 2011 meeting. The Board was the final decisionmaker for all contract renewal decisions. At the March 10 meeting, Montes provided Board Vice President Larry Polk with a packet of documents to rebut her evaluation. Polk did not read the documents but gave them to Adamic to distribute to the remaining Board members. Adamic forwarded the documents with a cover memo to the Board on March 16, noting that Montes knew about the change in her supervisors since October and including her own timeline of events that led up to Adamic and Dziallo's recommendation not to renew Montes' contract. Adamic and Dziallo then discussed Montes' evaluation with the Board at its April 7 closed session meeting, indicating that they did not believe Montes was the proper leader for the ELL program and highlighting issues with ELL student data. Although Montes had requested a hearing before the Board, instead of providing her with that hearing, the Board accepted the recommendation not to renew her contract at its April 7 meeting. Polk could not recall another occasion where the Board had not approved a request for an employee to address the Board in a closed session about an employment situation. Polk testified that the Board members relied on Adamic's and Dziallo's recommendation in not renewing Montes' contract. Another Board member, Larry Terracino, testified that the Board also took into consideration the recommendations of other assistant superintendents involved in the Board meeting, but he did not identify these individuals and no other assistant superintendents attended the April 7, 2011 closed session.
Ilyse Leland, who is not of Mexican national origin, replaced Montes as the ELL Director in July 2011. Leland has a bachelor's degree in Near East Studies and a master's degree in instructional leadership, and holds administrative, early childhood, elementary, and high school certifications. She also has ESL and bilingual education endorsements, and had previously worked in program administration for the Bellwood School District with responsibility for bilingual programs and was the ISBE's principal consultant in the ELL division from 2008 to 2010, monitoring school districts for grant compliance. Before hiring Leland, however, the District had offered the ELL Director position to Diego Giraldo, who is Hispanic, but Giraldo declined the position. After Leland assumed the ELL Director role, the District purchased the REACH program for ELL students. As ELL Director, Leland communicated directly with Adamic instead of working through a supervisor. Saucedo does not recall Leland completing an ELL department handbook in the 2011-2012 or 2012-2013 academic years.
Summary judgment obviates the need for a trial where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. To determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court must pierce the pleadings and assess the proof as presented in depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits that are part of the record. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 & advisory committee's notes. The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In response, the non-moving party cannot rest on mere pleadings alone but must use the evidentiary tools listed above
Montes brings a claim against the District under Title VII for discrimination on the basis of her national origin and her association with persons of her national origin.
The District does not contest the first or third elements of Montes' prima facie case, acknowledging that she is of Mexican national origin and that her employment agreement with the District was not renewed for the 2011-2012 academic year. But the District argues that Montes cannot establish that she was meeting the District's legitimate expectations or that the District treated similarly situated employees not of Mexican national origin more favorably. The District also argues that even if there are questions of fact surrounding Montes' prima facie case, Montes cannot show that the District's stated reasons for not renewing her contract were pretext for discrimination.
Unfortunately, the Court's analysis is not linear, as there is significant overlap that arises from the parties' presentation of the issues.
The District claims that Montes cannot show that she was similarly situated to other program directors not in her protected class who were treated more favorably. To show that an employee is similarly situated, Montes must demonstrate that the employee "(1) dealt with the same supervisor, (2)[was] subject to the same standards, and (3) engaged in similar conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them." Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835, 847 (7th Cir.2012) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). A precise comparison is not required, however. Harper v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297, 309 (7th Cir.2012) ("A similarly situated employee need not be in a situation identical to that of the plaintiff."). Alternatively, the similarly situated inquiry can merge with the legitimate expectations prong of a plaintiff's prima facie case if there is evidence that the employer applied its legitimate job expectations in a disparate manner (i.e. that the District had two sets of employment expectations, one for Mexican employees and one for non-Mexicans). Peele v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 319, 329 (7th Cir.2002) ("When a plaintiff produces evidence sufficient to raise an inference that an employer applied its legitimate employment expectations in a disparate manner (i.e., applied expectations to similarly situated male and younger employees in a more favorable manner), the second and fourth prongs of McDonnell Douglas merge — allowing the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, stave off summary judgment for the time being, and proceed to the pretext inquiry."). Finally, in the termination context, the Seventh Circuit has held that, where the plaintiff has raised an issue of material fact that she was meeting the employer's legitimate expectations, the fourth prong of the prima facie case may be met by showing that "the employer needs to find another person to perform that job after the employee is gone." Pantoja v. Am. NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp., 495 F.3d 840, 846 (7th Cir.2007).
Montes' brief is less than clear as to which avenue she is pursuing to establish this element. She names other program directors in the District who were supervised by Mulattieri during the 2010-2011 academic year until Mulattieri's resignation, indicating that they were all not of Mexican origin. Montes claims that these program directors engaged in similar conduct to her, should have been subject to the same standards as she, but were not subject to the same consequences. But she provides nothing to support her conclusory statements regarding the conduct in which they engaged, the standards to which they were held, or even to establish that they all had their contracts renewed for the following year. These program directors' reviews for the 2010-2011 academic year are not in the record, nor does the record include any other admissible evidence of their evaluations, job expectations,
Alternatively, Montes could be arguing that the District's expectations of her were inherently discriminatory, contending that, as the only program director of Mexican national origin, she was subjected to different expectations in the 2010-2011 academic year than the other program directors in the District. Here, Mulattieri's affidavit, attesting that Montes was the only director under her supervision to be given certain responsibilities and goals furthers Montes' argument, as it could create a question of fact as to whether the District subjected Montes to higher standards than other similarly situated program directors who were not of Mexican national origin. The District does not specifically respond to Mulattieri's statements regarding these other directors,
Montes' most promising argument relies on the Court finding that she was meeting the District's legitimate expectations (or at least that she has raised an issue of fact on
The District argues that Montes cannot show that her job performance met its legitimate expectations or that the District's proffered reason for her termination — her inadequate performance as the ELL director — is a pretext for discrimination. As discussed above, because both issues turn on whether the District is not truthful about Montes' job performance, the Court addresses the second element of Montes' prima face case and the pretext question together. See Everroad, 604 F.3d at 477-78.
To establish pretext, Montes must demonstrate that "(a) the employer's nondiscriminatory reason was dishonest; and (b) the employer's true reason was based on a discriminatory intent." E.E.O.C. v. Target Corp., 460 F.3d 946, 960 (7th Cir.2006). "A plaintiff shows that a reason is pretextual `directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the defendants or indirectly by showing that the defendants' proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.'" Blise v. Antaramian, 409 F.3d 861, 867 (7th Cir.2005) (brackets omitted) (quoting Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). In determining whether an employer's explanation is honest, courts look to the reasonableness of the explanation. See Duncan v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc., 518 F.3d 486, 492 (7th Cir.2008); Stewart v. Henderson, 207 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2000) ("The focus of a pretext inquiry is whether the employer's stated reason was honest, not whether it was accurate, wise or well-considered.").
The District presents a detailed list of Montes' shortcomings as ELL Director, to which Montes responds with a similarly detailed rebuttal. Although the relevant inquiry is her performance at the time of her evaluation, because that evaluation spanned the entire 2010-2011 academic year, Mulattieri's evaluation of her performance during the time she worked for the District in that year remains relevant. See Peele, 288 F.3d at 329 ("[T]he issue is not the employee's past performance but `whether the employee was performing well at the time of [her] termination.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting Karazanos v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 948 F.2d 332, 336 (7th Cir.1991))); see also Zayas, 740 F.3d at 1158 ("The question is not whether she ever satisfied the Hospital's expectations, but whether she met the Hospital's expectations at the time she was fired."); Truesdale v. Maine Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 207, No. 04 C 7132, 2006 WL 2375469, at *9 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 14, 2006) (noting that expectations must be considered at time of discharge because the "quality of an employee's performance may change over time" and "the people who evaluate that performance may change as well"). Montes' two prior performance reviews are not wholly irrelevant, although they cannot on their own create an issue of
Montes relies heavily on her own and Mulattieri's evaluation of her performance to rebut Adamic and Dziallo's March 2011 performance evaluation to create a question of fact as to whether she was meeting the District's legitimate expectations and whether the reason given for the non-renewal of her contract was pretext for discrimination. A plaintiff's own evaluation of her work is generally not enough to avoid summary judgment. See Dickerson v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 522, 657 F.3d 595, 603 (7th Cir.2011) (plaintiff's "own evaluation of his work cannot be imputed to [the employer], and is insufficient to permit his case to survive past summary judgment"); Silverman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 637 F.3d 729, 738 (7th Cir.2011) (noting that if employee's disagreements with employer's negative assessment of employee's performance "were enough to avoid summary judgment and go to trial on an indirect proof case, summary judgment would become extinct and employer's evaluations would be supplanted by federal juries' evaluations"). Additionally, general co-worker or supervisor statements that merely support a plaintiff's view of her job performance are typically given little weight. Peele, 288 F.3d at 329. But an employee's own statements in rebuttal may be considered if they "raise a genuine issue about the honesty, not merely the accuracy, of the employer's stated evaluation." Silverman, 637 F.3d at 738. More specifically, "[a]lthough general averments of adequate performance are insufficient to create a factual issue on summary judgment even when corroborated by statements of supervisors or co-workers, a plaintiff may create an issue of fact by specifically refuting facts that allegedly support the employer's claim of performance deficiencies." Dey v. Colt Constr. & Dev. Co., 28 F.3d 1446, 1460 (7th Cir.1994).
Here, Montes, with Mulattieri's assistance, has provided a detailed refutation of the District's assessment of her negative performance as ELL director. She also points to comments made by Adamic and Dziallo that undermine some of the performance deficiencies they themselves identified. For example, she notes that Dziallo stated that the ELL data was the cleanest it had ever been even though he cited her for unsatisfactory performance with respect to the ELL data in her evaluation that same month. "A detailed refutation of events which underlie the employer's negative performance assessment demonstrates that the employer may not have honestly relied on the identified deficiencies in making its decision." Dey, 28 F.3d at 1460-61. Montes has provided just such a detailed refutation, challenging the veracity of Adamic and Dziallo's evaluation, and the reasons given by the District in its summary judgment motion for not renewing her contract, instead of relying on general statements that her performance was satisfactory. Cf. Burks v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 464 F.3d 744, 752 n. 6 (7th Cir.2006) (distinguishing Dey and noting that in the case before the court, the plaintiff had not offered any evidence that specific events had not occurred, instead only that a co-worker did not perceive any problems with the plaintiff's performance). Although the District disputes that Montes' rebuttals of her
The District argues that summary judgment is nonetheless appropriate because the ultimate decisionmaker in this case was the Board, and not Adamic and Dziallo, and so it is irrelevant if Adamic and Dziallo may have acted with discriminatory animus. Montes responds that she can succeed under the cat's paw theory, which allows an employer to be held liable where "a non-decision-making employee with discriminatory animus provided factual information or input that may have affected the adverse employment action." Matthews v. Waukesha County, 759 F.3d 821, 829 (7th Cir.2014); Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 900 (7th Cir.2012) ("Our decisions teach that when a subordinate harbors a discriminatory animus and advises the ultimate decision-maker to take an adverse action against the plaintiff, that evidence can support a claim against the corporate employer."). Although the Board did make the final decision not to renew Montes' contract, Montes has provided evidence that the Board's decision was based on Adamic and Dziallo's recommendation. One of the Board members, Polk, testified that he did not read any of Montes' rebuttal documents before voting not to renew her employment contract. The Board also denied Montes' request for a hearing, denying her the ability to present her position to the Board. The District cites to evidence suggesting that the Board also conducted its own review, discussing Montes' prior evaluations and relying on testimony of other assistant superintendents (although the District does not provide the identity of these other assistant superintendents and acknowledges that Adamic and Dziallo were the only non-Board members at the meeting discussing Montes' non-renewal). But it is not clear from the facts in the record whether the Board's determined that non-renewal was entirely justified apart from Adamic and Dziallo's recommendation, with the evidence not being sufficient to suggest that the Board conducted an entirely independent investigation so as to break the chain of causation. See Woods v. City of Berwyn, 803 F.3d 865, 870 (7th Cir.2015). Because there is at least a question of fact on the issue of whether Adamic and Dziallo were substantially involved in the decisionmaking process so that the cat's paw theory applies, it must be submitted to the jury. See Smith, 681 F.3d at 900 (finding question of fact as to whether supervisor provided input that contributed to plaintiff's termination where she was "substantially involved at every stage of his workplace controversies" and wrote the report requesting termination); Goswami v. DePaul Univ., No. 12 C 7167, 2015 WL 251304, at *15 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 20, 2015) (leaving it to the jury to determine whether plaintiff's cat's paw theory is persuasive); cf. Woods, 803 F.3d at 870-72 (cat's paw theory did not apply where Board
Montes also brings a claim against Adamic and Dziallo for intentional interference with business expectancy, also known as tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. To prevail on this claim, Montes must establish: (1) a reasonable expectation of entering a valid business relationship, (2) Adamic and Dziallo's knowledge of that expectation, (3) Adamic and Dziallo's purposeful interference that prevented Montes' legitimate expectation from becoming a valid business relationship, and (4) damages resulting from their interference. Atanus v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 932 N.E.2d 1044, 1048, 403 Ill.App.3d 549, 342 Ill.Dec. 583 (2010).
Adamic and Dziallo argue that Montes cannot establish any of the elements of this claim, but the Court need only address the first. They argue Montes did not have a sufficient expectation of continued employment with the District, as she had a year-to-year contract, not tenure, and knew it was possible that her contract would not be renewed at least as of December 2010. They also maintain that her previous contract renewals did not create a right to future employment with the District. Illinois courts have held that an individual employed under a renewable contract does not enjoy a sufficient expectancy of continued employment so as to sustain a claim for tortious interference with business expectancy, for "the mere hope of continued employment, without more, does not ... constitute a reasonable expectancy." Williams v. Weaver, 495 N.E.2d 1147, 1152, 145 Ill.App.3d 562, 99 Ill.Dec. 412 (1986); see also Werblood v. Columbia Coll., 536 N.E.2d 750, 755-56, 180 Ill.App.3d 967, 129 Ill.Dec. 700 (1989) (plaintiff's expectation that her employment contract would be renewed was not sufficient to support a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, even where officials had assured her that her employment was secure); Goswami v. DePaul Univ., No. 12 C 7167, 2014 WL 125600, at *6-7 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 14, 2014) (plaintiff did not have reasonable expectancy of contract being renewed and being granted tenure even where she had consistent excellent reviews and no reports of deficient performance); Robinson v. Sabis Educ. Sys., Inc., No. 98 C 4251, 1999 WL 414262, at *14 (N.D.Ill. June 4, 1999) (plaintiff only had at-will employment relationship and so could not pursue tortious interference claim against school employees who influenced her termination). Montes cites to her prior positive reviews and the improvement plan as evidence that she had a reasonable expectation of continued employment. But Montes was on a year-to-year contract and had been informed several times that her contract might not be renewed. This differentiates her from the at-will employee in James v. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., who was found to have a reasonable expectancy of continued employment based on an exemplary work record and previous promotions. No. 09-cv-781, 2010 WL 529444, at *4-5 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 10, 2010) (allowing claim to go forward at motion to dismiss stage). Because Montes' expectation of continued employment was unfounded, her tortious interference claim fails on the first element and judgment is
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [134] is granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Donna Adamic and Michael Dziallo on Montes' intentional interference with business expectancy claim (Count II). Summary judgment is denied on Montes' national origin and associational national origin discrimination claim (Count I).
