A federal judge has granted summary judgment to the City of Chicago and two senior Chicago Fire Department officials in a race and sex discrimination suit brought by a retired battalion chief who claimed she was repeatedly passed over for promotion.

Battalion Chief Rhonda Walker, identified in the complaint as a Black woman, joined the Chicago Fire Department in 1991. She advanced through the ranks ultimately becoming a battalion chief. From 2021 until her retirement in August 2024, she was assigned as a battalion chief in Battalion 21.

In 2022, the department opened a promotional process for deputy district chief. Candidates were required to hold the rank of battalion chief, but there were no specific educational or training requirements for promotion. Chief Walker was among nine battalion chiefs who applied.

The candidates were interviewed by a panel assembled by Deputy Fire Commissioner of Operations Marc Ferman. The panel used standardized questions and following the interviews, discussed and ranked the candidates. Deputy Commissioner Ferman also considered the candidates’ resumes, radio communications, and day-to-day operational performance. Chief Walker was ranked eighth or ninth among the candidates.

The department initially promoted Battalion Chiefs Shun Haynes and Kelly Burns in November 2022. A second round of promotions in March 2023 resulted in the promotion of Battalion Chiefs Gary Brooks, Raul Ochoa, Christopher Serb and Douglas Schick. Chief Walker was not selected in either round.

A third round of promotions took place in February 2024. Several additional battalion chiefs were interviewed, and the panel ultimately recommended Battalion Chiefs Douglas Crowley, Mark Mielnicki, Ernie Pinkston and Scott Shawaluk.

The court noted that Battalion Chief Walker had more seniority and experience as a battalion chief than the other candidates and was qualified for promotion. She also had experience in airport operations, high-rise incident command and the Fire Prevention Bureau, and had served as a captain in a busy downtown area. Deputy Commissioner Ferman acknowledged that she had interviewed well, and Deputy Fire Commissioner of Logistics Brandon Keller testified that she was capable of temporarily serving as a deputy district chief.

However, the promotion panel considered other candidates stronger in areas it regarded as particularly important for deputy district chiefs, including radio communications, emergency incident performance and specialized training. Deputy Commissioner Ferman testified that the goal was to select “the best possible person who was available at that time.”

Chief Walker also claimed she was denied the same opportunities as male battalion chiefs to prepare for promotion. The department permits battalion chiefs to shadow deputy district chiefs, a practice referred to as “riding along,” and to temporarily serve as a deputy district chief for a 24-hour shift, referred to as “working up.” Battalion Chief Walker testified that she worked up on three occasions but maintained that she was not afforded the same opportunities as others.

Chief Walker had a history of challenging what she considered discriminatory treatment by the city. Her protected activities included discrimination complaints dating to 2017, a 2020 discrimination and retaliation charge, a 2021 lawsuit, and an EEOC charge filed in September 2023. She filed another EEOC charge in May 2024 alleging that she had been denied promotion and opportunities to train and work up because of her race and sex and in retaliation for her prior complaints.

She filed the current suit in federal court in July 2024 against the city, Fire Commissioner Annette Nance-Holt and Deputy Fire Commissioner Brian Helmold. Her claims included race discrimination, sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII; an equal protection claim under §1983; and a claim under §1981.

Chief Walker’s initial problem was a settlement agreement from the earlier lawsuit that significantly narrowed her failure-to-promote claim. The settlement agreement released all employment-related claims known to her as of January 18, 2024. Because she acknowledged that she knew about the 2022 and 2023 promotion decisions by then, the court concluded that her current failure-to-promote claim could proceed only as to the February 2024 promotions.

U.S. District Court Judge Mary M. Rowland rejected Chief Walker’s remaining race and sex discrimination claims. As to the alleged denial of training, riding-along and working-up opportunities, Judge Rowland concluded that Chief Walker failed to identify a specific post-January 18, 2024 instance in which she was denied an opportunity for which she was eligible. She also failed to identify a similarly situated employee outside her protected classes who received an opportunity she was denied.

As to the February 2024 promotions, the city maintained that Chief Walker was not selected because the panel believed the four successful candidates were better suited for the position. The court concluded that this constituted a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the decision and that Chief Walker failed to produce evidence from which a jury could find that explanation was pretextual.

Judge Rowland rejected the argument that favorable comments about Chief Walker’s radio performance were inconsistent with the department’s explanation. The fact that she was a good communicator did not preclude the panel from concluding that other candidates were better communicators. The court also rejected her reliance on the fact that all of the candidates selected for deputy district chief were men. While acknowledging that fact, the court concluded that the statistics, without individualized evidence of discrimination, were insufficient.

Chief Walker also challenged the subjective nature of the promotion process, which relied heavily on interviews, discussions and personal observations. The court concluded that subjective criteria, standing alone, do not establish discrimination without evidence that they were being used to conceal discriminatory intent.

Judge Rowland summarized the discrimination evidence this way:

• At bottom, Walker is unable to cast doubt on the veracity of the City’s explanation that she was not a top candidate for February 2024 promotions.

The court also rejected Chief Walker’s retaliation claim. Her most recent protected activity before the February 2024 promotions was her September 2023 EEOC charge. Judge Rowland concluded that the five-month interval was too long, standing alone, to support an inference that the promotion decision was retaliatory.

Chief Walker pointed to Deputy Commissioner Keller’s testimony that there was “speculation” within the department that employees who had lawsuits were “looked past” during the vetting process. The court concluded that speculation was insufficient evidence of retaliation. It also rejected her attempt to compare herself to the four battalion chiefs promoted in February 2024 because she had not provided sufficient evidence comparing their training, incident experience, skills and other relevant qualifications.

Judge Rowland likewise granted summary judgment to Commissioner Nance-Holt and Deputy Commissioner Helmold on Chief Walker’s Section 1983 equal protection claim. The court found no evidence from which a jury could conclude that either official acted with an intent to discriminate based upon Chief Walker’s race or sex.

The Section 1983 claim against the city also failed. Chief Walker argued that the department maintained a systemic, unwritten and discretionary promotion process that lacked safeguards against discrimination and excluded women. The court concluded that she had not shown a constitutional violation or established that city policymakers were deliberately indifferent to a known risk that the promotion process would result in unconstitutional discrimination.

The court also rejected Chief Walker’s argument that Commissioner Nance-Holt’s involvement in promotions made her a final policymaker for purposes of municipal liability. Judge Rowland noted that being a decisionmaker is not necessarily the same as being a final policymaker under Section 1983, and Battalion Chief Walker offered no evidence that Commissioner Nance-Holt had been given final policymaking authority over employment matters.

Finally, the court granted summary judgment on Chief Walker’s Section 1981 claim. Under Seventh Circuit precedent, Section 1981 does not provide a separate private cause of action against state actors; such claims must be pursued through Section 1983. Even construing the claim that way, Judge Rowland concluded it failed for the same reasons as Chief Walker’s other Section 1983 claims.

Judge Rowland granted summary judgment to the City of Chicago, Commissioner Nance-Holt and Deputy Commissioner Helmold on all counts and ordered judgment entered in their favor.