A federal judge won’t let the Illinois Secretary of State’s Office end a discrimination lawsuit from a Black woman who claimed she was fired for alleged misconduct that didn’t cost white male colleagues their jobs when they allegedly did the same thing.
According to court records, Kiesha Cuffy started working for the state agency in June 2016 at a driver service facility in Naperville. After maternity leave in November 2019, she sought a transfer to an Aurora office, which she said would help with postpartum depression by allowing her to nurse the baby during lunch breaks. She said the agency never responded to that transfer request.
Defendant Robert Spizzirri was Cuffy’s supervisor after her return to work. Cuffy alleged Spizzirri observed Duffy’s male colleagues making suggestive comments to her but either didn’t intervene or laughed at their remarks. She further said it was common for the white, male employee to allow family and friends to get drivers’ licenses without taking a road test and said Spizzirri was not only aware of the practice but did so himself.
However, Cuffy said, when she granted a restricted driving permit to a childhood friend without a road test on Feb. 6, 2020, it led to disciplinary measures. Among those was being reassigned to a busy part of the facility, requiring her to interact with hundreds of patrons daily, which she said gave her anxiety about contracting Covid and then exposing her baby. The state fired her on Aug. 28, 2020, citing her improper permit issuance on Feb. 6 as the motivating factor.
Cuffy appealed her termination to the Merit Commission, which denied her request, so she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That body declined to pursue the claim and allowed her to sue, which she did on Oct. 26, 2021, alleging violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The state and Spizzirri argued Cuffy’s EEOC charge was untimely as it was filed more than 300 days after the Aug. 19, 2020, letter notifying Cuffy she was being considered for discharge. But Wood agreed Cuffy’s actual termination date was Sept. 8, when she received the Aug. 28 letter detailing the state’s final decision.
The defendants also argued Wood should dismiss Cuffy’s retaliation claim because she didn’t fully exhaust her possible remedies before filing the lawsuit. While Wood agreed Cuffy’s EEOC complaint didn’t explicitly allege retaliation, she said the filing still addresses that legal theory adequately enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
“In her EEOC charge, Cuffy alleges both that she engaged in a protected activity — i.e., requesting a reasonable accommodation for her disability — and a subsequent adverse employment action — her termination,” Wood wrote, adding that the “retaliation claim alleges that Cuffy was retaliated against for the protected activity of requesting an ADA accommodation. Further, the retaliation claim and the EEOC charge both describe the same conduct and implicate the same individuals. Thus, Cuffy’s retaliation falls within the scope of her EEOC charge.”
Wood further rejected Spizzirri’s arguments that Cuffy sued under a section of the law that doesn’t provide a private right of action against a state actor.
Citing a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, Wood noted “courts routinely decline to require any explicit mention” of the specific code section the defendants invoked and said Cuffy’s claims can be construed as falling under the proper code, under which Spizzirri wouldn’t be immune.
Wood again rejected timeliness arguments regarding the retaliation claim, citing the same determination regarding when Cuffy knew she was fired.
Cuffy has been represented in the case by attorneys Josh Goldberg and Steven C. Moeller, of the firm of Carpenter Lipps & Leland, of Chicago.