Lindblom v. Challenger Day Program, Ltd.

7 Citing cases

  1. Marshall v. Indiana

    CIVIL NO. 1:18CV398 (N.D. Ind. Jun. 8, 2020)

    However, as INDOT points out, the Seventh Circuit has held that staring or looking, even when combined with touching, is not objectively hostile. See Adusumilli v. City of Chicago, 164 F.3d 353, 361-62 (7th Cir. 1998) (staring and attempting to make eye contact, along with complaints about ambiguous comments and four incidents of a co-worker touching the plaintiff's arm, fingers, or buttocks, was not sufficient to find sexual harassment); Savino v. C.P. Hall Co., 199 F.3d 925, 933 (7th Cir. 1999) (staring at plaintiff and failing to give her gift certificate was not sufficient to create a hostile work environment); Lindblom v. Challenger Day Program, Ltd., 37 F. Supp.2d 1109, 114 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (male coworker's alleged conduct of staring at female teacher while she was teaching, touching her knee five times and her shoulder ten times, standing too close to her, and questioning her about her weekends was insufficiently severe and pervasive to support Title VII hostile work environment sexual harassment claim against school). In response to INDOT"S request for Summary Judgment on her sexual harassment claim,, Marshall "begs to differ" and claims that Dull's conduct was "of course" offensively objective and pervasive and severe.

  2. Gilliam v. Berkeley Contract Packaging, LLC

    No. 12-cv-1174-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 2014)

    526, 528-34 (7th Cir. 1993) (allegations that a supervisor took the plaintiff to a jazz club, placed his hand on her thigh, kidder her, and later asked her on a date and lurched at her from behind some bushes was not sufficiently severe as to create a hostile work environment); Howard v. Sheahan, 546 F. Supp. 2d 566, 569-70 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (Hibbler, J.) (allegations that two supervisors complimented the plaintiff, asked her on dates, "leered" at her, and told her she was "hot," not actionable under Title VII); Harris v. Franklin-Williamson Human Servs., Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 892, 902 (S.D. Ill. 2000) (Herndon, J.) (claims that over ten year period, supervisor made inappropriate comments about phone call, called plaintiff a "Dragon Lady" and a jerk, twice stated, "women rub their eyes, men rub their balls," told a joke while simulating masturbating, told a blond joke, and made a comment about the plaintiff's breasts, were not sufficient to withstand summary judgment under Title VII); Lindblom v. Challenger Day Program, Ltd., 37 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1114-15 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (Gottschall, J.) (allegations that over the course of one year, co-worker stared at plaintiff while teaching, touched her five times when he bent down to talk to her, touched her shoulder ten times to get her attention, stood too close to her, questioned her about her weekend, and once fondled her at a private party, insufficient under Title VII). Gilliam's allegations of hostile work environment clearly do not rise to the level of severity necessary to withstand summary judgment. In summary, the Court has reviewed Gilliam's evidence offered in support of her claims, namely her deposition, and finds Gilliam has not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to find in her favor as to her claims of sexual harassment under Title VII and the IHRA. Summary judgment shall be entered in favor of Berkeley as to all four counts of Gilliam's amended complaint.

  3. Guider v. Schiff Hardin LLP

    No. 05 C 3695 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 18, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Although the two instances of physical contact are the most serious of Guider's allegations, they are insufficient, either alone or in conjunction with Villasenor's other actions, to create an environment that would be considered abusive or hostile by a reasonable person. Hilt-Dyson, 282 F.3d at 463-464 (holding that two back rubbing incidents occurring on two consecutive days were not actionable harassment); see also Lindbloom v. Challenger Day Program Ltd., 37 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1114-1115 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (granting summary judgment where plaintiff alleged that, over course of one year, harasser stared at her, touched her knee five times, touched her shoulder ten times, stood too close to her, asked about her weekend and fondled her at a party). Villasenor rubbed Guider's shoulders for "a couple of seconds" and said that she smelled good. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 79.)

  4. Dominicak-Brutus v. Urban Property Services Co.

    217 F. Supp. 2d 911 (N.D. Ill. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Analyzing as initial matter in discriminatory failure to promote case whether plaintiff sought position at issue and whether there were any such positions available

    Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 126 F.3d 1010, 1014 (7th Cir. 1997) ("the law against sexual harassment is not self-enforcing"). Moreover, the Court concludes that this albeit immature behavior cannot be considered objectively hostile. See, e.g., Lindblom v. Challenger Day Program, Ltd., 37 F. Supp.2d 1109, 1111 (N.D.Ill. 1999) (finding that the plaintiff's allegations that co-worker stood too close to her, stared at her and touched her knee and shoulder on several occasions did not create an objectively hostile work environment). Dominicak claims that she was forced to resign because of the conditions at Urban.

  5. Dominicak-Brutus v. Urban Property Services Company

    No. 01 C 5646 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2002)

    Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 126 F.3d 1010, 1014 (7th Cir. 1997) ("the law against sexual harassment is not self-enforcing"). Moreover, the Court concludes that this albeit immature behavior cannot be considered objectively hostile. See, e.g., Lindblom v. Challenger Day Program, Ltd., 37 F. Supp.2d 1109, 11 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (finding that the plaintiff's allegations that co-worker stood too close to her, stared at her and touched her knee and shoulder on several occasions did not create an objectively hostile work environment). Dominicak claims that she was forced to resign because of the conditions at Urban.

  6. Matheny v. Reid Hospital Health Care Services, Inc., (S.D.Ind. 2002)

    IP 00-1439-C-T/K (S.D. Ind. Mar. 12, 2002)   Cited 4 times
    In Matheny v. Reid Hospital Health Care Services, Inc., 2002 WL 655702, at *11 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 12, 2002), an unpublished opinion, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligent retention claim when it found that the plaintiff raised genuine issues with respect to the appropriateness of the defendant's response to her complaints of harassment, especially "in light of the multiple, prior complaints regarding [the alleged harasser's] similar conduct.

    Id. at 337. Cf. Lindblom v. Challenger Day Program, Ltd., 37 F. Supp.2d 1109, 1114-15 (N.D.Ill. 1999) (holding coworker's alleged conduct over the course of one year of staring at plaintiff while she was teaching, touching her knee five times, touching her shoulder ten times to get her attention, standing too close to her, questioning her about her weekend, and fondling her once at a private party was insufficient severe or pervasive to constitute actionable sexual harassment). Though Matheny's allegations against Ang may be similar to the conduct alleged in these cases as to severity, they are dissimilar as to pervasiveness.

  7. Urban v. Blossom Hill Health Centre, Inc.

    No. 97 C 5507 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Arguing that Plaintiff's allegations of unwanted touching and inappropriate language occurring before March 1997 are outside the scope of her EEOC charge, Defendant relies on three cases: Vela v. Village of Sauk Village, 218 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2000); Jayne v. ABF Freight System. Inc., No. 98 C 2680, 1999 WL 92920 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1999), aff'd. 202 F.3d 273 (Table in WESTLAW), No. 99 C 1670, 1999 WL 1075159 (7th Cir. Nov. 24, 1999); and Lindblom v. Challenger Day Program, Ltd., 37 F. Supp.2d 1109 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Each case is distinguishable from this one, however. In both Vela and Jayne, the plaintiffs filed charges with the EEOC alleging disparate treatment and, in Jayne, retaliation for complaining about failure to accommodate a disability, and then attempted to assert claims of hostile environment sexual harassment in their complaints.