Opinion
No. 01 C 50026
August 7, 2003.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Booker T. Woodard, filed a second amended complaint alleging that defendant, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, refused to hire him based on his race (African-American) in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff failed to present evidence on one of the elements of his prima facie case of discrimination, that is, whether he applied for a position and whether he was qualified for an open position.
Initially, it should be noted that this court previously ruled that the relevant time frame for plaintiffs claim is after January 24, 1999 based on the applicable limitations period. See Woodard v. Hamilton Sundstrand, 2002 WL 226876 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2002).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. O'Neal v. City of New Albany, 293 F.3d 998, 1003 (7th Cir. 2002). Generally, if a plaintiff presents evidence from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn, summary judgment is improper. O'Neal, 293 F.3d at 1003.
A plaintiff may prove race discrimination under section 1981 via direct or indirect evidence. O'Neal, 293 F.3d at 1003. Plaintiff here lacks direct proof of discrimination, therefore, he relies on the indirect, burden-shifting, approach. Applying this approach, plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) he was rejected; and (4) the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants. See O'Neal, 293 F.3d at 1003.
Here, plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence that he actually applied for a position with defendant after January 24, 1999. The best defendant can do in that regard is that he updated a resume he had earlier submitted to an employee in defendant's human resources department that he knew because he was in a class taught by the employee at a local community college. It is also undisputed that plaintiff had expressed to this employee a general interest in working for defendant. Plaintiff has offered no evidence, however, that he ever applied for a specific position after January 24, 1999.
Further, plaintiff offered no evidence of his qualifications for a particular position with defendant. Additionally, he has also not identified a particular position for which he was not hired after January 24, 1999.
Because plaintiff has failed to submit evidence to support one of the elements of his prima facie case (or at least raise a question of material fact as to that element), the court grants summary judgment favor of defendant.