A federal court has granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago and a former supervisor at Chicago Animal Care and Control (CACC), dismissing all claims brought by a former employee.
The ruling ends a lawsuit that included allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and breaches of the Illinois Whistleblower Act.
I.C., who worked as an Animal Control Officer (ACO) from 2014 to 2021, alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a coworker in 2018 and faced ongoing harassment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment after reporting the incident. The court found that while some of the behavior she experienced was inappropriate, it did not rise to the level required to support claims under federal or state law.
“The conduct was merely offensive, not humiliating or physically threatening,” the court held. “This is insufficient to serve as the basis for Title VII liability for a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment.”
Assault and aftermath
The case stemmed from an off-duty incident on February 4, 2018, when I.C. alleged she was sexually assaulted by a coworker. She did not report the assault to management at the time but requested not to work the same shift as the accused. That request was honored, and the two were only paired twice afterward—once for a full shift and once for part of a day.
More than a year later, on February 19, 2019, I.C. formally reported the assault to the City’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Division and later to the Chicago Police Department. Her complaint was referred to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), which ultimately found that the coworker had sexually assaulted her and that her supervisor, J.D.R., violated city policy by failing to report the incident. The coworker was fired, and J.D.R. received a seven-day suspension.
Hostile work environment claim rejected
Despite acknowledging the seriousness of the alleged assault and the challenges I.C. faced at work afterward, the court ruled that the conduct described did not meet the legal threshold for a hostile work environment.
To prevail, the plaintiff needed to show that the workplace was “both subjectively and objectively offensive,” that the harassment was “based on membership in a protected class,” and that it was “severe and pervasive.”
The court determined that while some coworkers made inappropriate remarks—such as suggesting the incident was consensual or that she was “ruining” the supervisor’s life—these comments were infrequent and mostly made outside of her presence.
“She could not say for certain whether conversations about her happened at all,” the court noted. “The evidence is speculative at best.”
The court also dismissed claims that workplace memes about “snitches” and being assigned to certain geographic “beats” rose to the level of harassment. “There is no evidence in the record that would support a jury concluding that the memes or beat assignments were offensive, sexual in nature, or included comments about [her] sex,” it stated.
Retaliation and constructive discharge arguments fail
I.C. also alleged retaliation under Title VII, claiming that her shift assignments and eventual departure from the job amounted to adverse actions.
The court disagreed. While I.C. argued that she was constructively discharged and assigned to unsafe areas as retaliation, the court found no evidence that her job duties changed or that she was singled out unfairly.
“She was not required to work extra hours, did not suffer any loss of pay and was not disciplined for failing to complete her work,” the court held. “The assignments of these particular ‘bad beats’ do not qualify as materially adverse actions.”
The court further ruled that I.C.’s constructive discharge argument was waived because it was raised too late and not properly included in her legal filings.
Constitutional and state law claims dismissed
I.C.’s claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, filed under Section 1983, were also dismissed. The court applied the same standards as it did to the Title VII claims and found no evidence of constitutionally protected speech being chilled or of discrimination based on sex.
“The assignment of particular beats over others would not be sufficient to deter an ordinary person from exercising their First Amendment rights,” the court said.
Similarly, her Illinois Whistleblower Act claim failed because she did not demonstrate that she experienced any materially adverse employment actions in retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct.
“The employer’s retaliation must constitute a materially adverse employment action,” the court held. “Corona has not shown that materially adverse actions were taken against her in retaliation.”
Case closed
Having resolved all counts in favor of the defendants, the court also denied as moot I.C.’s separate motion for judicial estoppel and granted the City’s request to file certain documents under seal.
For more information, see Corona v. City of Chicago, Department of Animal Care and Control, No. 1:2021cv06777 – Document 152 (N.D. Ill. 2025).
