Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ill.: Hispanic teacher’s Title VII complaint against Chicago Teachers Union fails on summary judgment, (Sep 18, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

A normative argument about making grievance records easily searchable for identification of McDonnell Douglas comparators did not succeed where the teacher otherwise failed to perfect a triable record about her own perceptions of discrimination.

The way the Chicago Teachers Union organized its members’ grievance files reflected, at worst, bureaucratic inertia, not discriminatory intent, held the federal district court in Illinois, in granting the union’s motion for summary judgment on a teacher’s Title VII claim that the union failed to pursue her grievances. The court noted the employee did not cite any law, policy, or recognized best practice on-point supporting an affirmative union duty to categorize grievance records for ease of data mining in connection with discrimination discovery requests. Likewise, as to the employee’s own direct experiences, she failed to perfect a record in opposition to summary judgment raising a genuine dispute of fact concerning discrimination. Without direct, indirect, circumstantial, or other evidence of racial discrimination or disparate treatment, the court was left with mere speculation (Rosas v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, No. 1:19-cv-02778 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2025)).

Discrimination claims. A Hispanic school teacher and former employee of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) brought a discrimination and retaliation complaint against the Board of Education of the City of Chicago and her union. The teacher alleged the employer discriminated against her based on race, national origin, and disability, and then retaliated against her. She alleged the union discriminated against her by mishandling or otherwise failing to properly handle her grievances against the Board.

Specifically, the teacher alleged she taught at two elementary schools and enjoyed the benefits of collective bargaining agreements between the union and the employer. The CBAs called for resolution of disputes between the employer and union members through specific grievance and arbitration procedures. The union was responsible for representing employees in this process.

Union grievances. The teacher contended that the union discriminated against her by mishandling her four grievances regarding whether: (1) the employer violated the bilingual education policies at a school; (2) maintenance and cleanliness issues at the school; (3) non-renewal of probationary employment at the school: and (4) issues involving a denial of her request to return to work at another school and related leave.

The union said it decided not to arbitrate the first two grievances because neither was likely to succeed. As for non-renewal of employment, the union said it did not immediately file a grievance because the Board had not finalized its teacher performance ratings for 2018-2019. The employee allegedly did not complete a checklist and return her final rating to the union with her grievance authorization.

As for the fourth grievance, the employee faced some criticism at her previous school, which she denied. The employer approved her request for leave, but it was discretionary. The right to return was not guaranteed, and when the teacher asked to return, the Board said it had filled her position. The union did not file this grievance either.

The court granted the union’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded that the teacher’s only claim against the union was that it violated Title VII by failing to pursue her four grievances against the employer.

General practices. Starting with general union practices, the employee asserted that it organized grievance records in a way indicative of discriminatory animus. Specifically, the employee asserted the union did not categorize its records to permit quick identification of instances of union member complaints about Spanish-speaking student instruction. The union’s inability to data mine grievances allegedly stymied the teacher’s identification of similarly situated, non-Hispanic teachers who may have received more favorable treatment in the processing of their grievances. She suggested the union had failed, over a period of decades, to conform its grievance record creation and management to the McDonnell Douglas framework by categorizing grievances by race, language, or the underlying issues.

The court rejected the teacher’s argument as speculative. According to the court, the teacher did not cite any law, policy, or recognized best practice on-point about some affirmative union duty to manage grievance records in the way the teacher proposed. At worst, the court said it could only infer bureaucratic inertia, not discriminatory intent. The court noted it did not appear the employer ever filed a motion to compel production of all grievances so she could perform the search.

Further, the employee expressed an anecdotal belief that there were specific instances of the union taking non-Hispanic teachers’ grievances more seriously. However, the court noted that she did not mention any comparative anecdotes in her opposition to summary judgment.

Direct experiences. Turning to the employee’s own direct experiences, the court analyzed each grievance in turn, but its conclusions were the same: while the union may have erred in handling grievances, no jury could infer discrimination from the evidence presented.

As to the first two grievances, the union explained triage was essential due to the $10,000 cost of arbitration. The union also cited there was no contractual basis for the first grievance. It also noted there were no similar complaints at the employee’s school.

Next, the employee asserted that, as the school’s sole Hispanic teacher, she was forced to teach in unhealthy conditions. She suggested deliberate placement of rat feces in her classroom. She also suggested the fact that she was the only complainant was a reason for the union to pursue her grievances, not drop them.

The court acknowledged the account was horrific; however, it noted that the employee did not perfect a record of it on either account. She did not include her status as the sole Hispanic teacher in her statement of facts or submit evidence about the demographics of the other teachers. She also did not support her targeting theory that the rat feces were either disregarded or placed deliberately. Without direct, indirect, circumstantial, or other evidence of racial discrimination or disparate treatment, the court had only speculation.

Even if a reasonable jury could find the union mishandled the first two grievances, the employee needed to show discrimination. She did not offer evidence of the customary union grievance process or comparative outcomes. Nor did she offer evidence of race-based remarks or other indicia of possible discriminatory animus to raise a genuine dispute.

As for the third and fourth grievances involving non-renewal at the school and her departure from a prior school, the union said it had nondiscriminatory reasons for not filing these grievances, as they were time-barred.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the employee failed to provide facts suggesting the union mishandled her grievances on the basis of race or national origin.

The case is No. 1:19-cv-02778.

Judge: Perry, A.

Attorneys: Terry A. Fox (Terry Fox Law Offices) for Irma Rosas. Thomas Arthur Doyle, Board of Education of City of Chicago, for Board of Education of City of Chicago. Hal Dworkin, Illinois Attorney General’s Office, for Illinois State Board of Education. Josiah A. Groff (Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Cervone, Auerbach & Yokich) for Chicago Teachers’ Union Local 1, American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO.

Companies: Board of Education of City of Chicago; Illinois State Board of Education; Chicago Teachers’ Union Local 1, American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination NationalOrigin DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation EvidenceDiscovery IllinoisNews