Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-3286 & 09-3468 Schandelmeier-Bartels v. Chicago Park District

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 8, 2011//

09-3286 & 09-3468 Schandelmeier-Bartels v. Chicago Park District

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 8, 2011//

Listen to this article

Employment
Race discrimination; cat’s paw theory

Where the nominal decisionmaker had no direct contact with the discharged employee, and the employee was discharged the day after the employee’s immediate supervisor made racist comments, judgment was improperly granted to the employer despite the jury’s verdict in favor of the employee.

“If McDonald really was the decisionmaker, and if her decision was already made on July 24th, it would be more difficult to conclude that Adams’s exhibition of racism on July 31st tainted McDonald’s already-made decision to fire Schandelmeier. The most basic problem for the Park District is that the evidence does not point consistently in that direction. McDonald herself described the decision as a ‘joint’ one (and one in which Adams ‘certainly’ had input), but the supervisory group had not reached a ‘joint’ decision about Schandelmeier’s employment as of July 24th. Both Williams and Adams testified that they had no idea that Schandelmeier would be terminated until she was actually terminated on August 1st. If McDonald had actually reached a decision before then—especially the ‘joint’ decision she described in her testimony—the jury could reasonably infer that she would have informed Schandelmeier’s direct supervisors—Williams and Adams, who supposedly participated in the ‘joint’ decision—of her decision. Also, the language McDonald used in her ‘CAM request’ e-mail is not absolute and does not state that any decision—hers or anyone else’s—had been made. The jury could have reasonably read McDonald’s message as only a request for information in case a decision was made to terminate Schandelmeier. The jury had reasonable grounds for discounting McDonald’s testimony that her mind was made up on July 24th and that her mind was the only one that counted.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

09-3286 & 09-3468 Schandelmeier-Bartels v. Chicago Park District

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coar, J., Hamilton, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests