A federal judge from the Northern District of Illinois has agreed with a small college that its reasons for firing Head Baseball Coach Mark Hernandez were non-discriminatory in nature.
William Rainey Harper College is a community college located in Palatine, Illinois. The school’s athletic director, Douglas Spiwak, recommended Hernandez for hire as the school’s baseball coach in May 2007.
The college has a policy that requires new hirees to submit to a criminal background check. The first phase of this check involves a “Waiver for Non-Fingerprint Conviction Information Records Check” form, which asks new hirees for their full name, date of birth, sex, social security number, and driver’s license number. Harper’s police department then submits the information to the Illinois State Police office, which generates a “Statewide Records Search document.” Harper policy dictates that if the records search returns a “conviction hit,” the new hiree must submit fingerprints for a further background check.
Hernandez, who worked over the summer without a contract, completed the non-fingerprint form in September 2007. The ensuing records search erroneously and returned a result indicating one or more conviction hits. Spiwak then informed Hernandez that he needed to undergo a fingerprint check. Hernandez agreed and went to the campus police office on October 2, 2007. Once there, Hernandez testified that he asked an officer why he needed to be fingerprinted. The officer allegedly responded that Hernandez’s “name had triggered markers within their system.”
In the days that followed, Hernandez’s fingerprints were lost, and he was asked to provide additional fingerprints. The coach was incensed. He nevertheless returned to the college police department for a second fingerprinting and a meeting with Harper’s chief of police. Before or during this meeting, however, the chief accessed a separate background-data system and determined that the conviction hits from the non-fingerprint background check were for someone other than Hernandez. The meeting therefore cleared Hernandez for continued employment.
While this drama was unfolding, Hernandez also had a tumultuous experience in on the field and in the clubhouse, which painted a picture of a coach, who was both disrespectful and arrogant, according to the defendant.
Spiwak ultimately terminated the coach for, among other reasons, “poor interpersonal communication with college employees and student athletes.”
On March 19, 2009, Hernandez filed a charge with the EEOC through the Illinois Department of Human Rights. He checked the box provided on the form for discrimination based on national origin. After the EEOC issued Hernandez a right to sue letter, he sued the school for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved for summary judgment, leading to the instant opinion.
Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was asked to submit fingerprints solely based on his last name, which he equates with a request based on his national origin.
The court leaned heavily on Stockett v. Muncie Ind. Transit Sys., 221 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2000) and Place v. Abbot Labs., 215 F.3d 803, 809 (7th Cir. 2000), where required drug tests and medical examinations were challenged. “There is no evidence, however, that Harper did anything other than follow this policy. Hernandez admits that his name returned conviction hits; that both before and after 2007-08 Harper has required other employees whose initial background checks returned conviction hits to submit fingerprints; and that he has no information that there was any employee whose initial check returned a conviction hit who was not required to submit fingerprints.
“In sum, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that any aspect of the background-check process changed the circumstances of Hernandez’s employment, inappropriately singled him out, or occurred for any reason other than Harper following, albeit imperfectly, its new-hire policy.” The court concluded that “Hernandez’s background check was not an adverse employment action and cannot support a Title VII discrimination claim.”
As for Hernandez’ allegation that he was terminated based on his national origin, the court found that there was no “direct evidence that the termination was discriminatory, even if it is considered along with the fingerprint requests.”
Without direct evidence, the plaintiff had to rely on the “burden-shifting method that the Supreme Court established in McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).” In short, he would have to show the reasons Harper fired him were “pretext” for a discriminatory reason.
In analyzing this possibility, the court looked at the stated reasons that the school fired Hernandez:
“(1) that plaintiff allowed a student to drive an unauthorized vehicle onto the baseball field without permission; (2) the complaints made by the athletic department staff about plaintiff’s demeanor and the need for plaintiff to foster a more positive relationship with the college staff; (3) the complaints made by returning baseball players about plaintiff not treating them fairly; (4) that plaintiff’s coaching and recruiting philosophies conflicted with that of the college; (5) that plaintiff’s conduct during the April 14, 2008, baseball game, his ejection, and subsequent suspension would not be tolerated by the college; and (6) that plaintiff demonstrated poor communication with others.”
The court went on to conclude that “Hernandez has not provided evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that any of Harper’s other reasons for his termination had no basis in fact.”
Mark S. Hernandez, v. William Rainey Harper College; N.D. Ill.; Case No. 10 C 2054, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124922; 10/ 27/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) John Joseph Lynch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney at Law, Chicago, IL. (for defendant) Frank Bennett Garrett, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., Chicago, IL; Catherine Regina Locallo, Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor, Chicago, IL.
