# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Nowak v. Transportation Joint Agreement (No. 07-1271)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386020_1335%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 2007

## Text

S Court, US.
PLE DB

No. l 071271 JAN 30 2008

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JEROME J. NOWAK - PETITIONER

V

TRANSPORTATION JOINT AGREEMENT,
SCHOOL DISTRICT 47,
SCHOOL DISTRICT 155

RESPONDENTS

\

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
U S COURT OF APPEALS, 7® CIRCUIT

P ON FOR T OF CERTIO

Jerome J Nowak
886 Aberdeen
Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014
(815) 477-4705

i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the First Amendment extend into the
classroom? Does the Petitioner Nowak not have
constitutional protection to ask questions?

a Did the lower courts err in granting summary
judgment to dismiss a case when the defendants business
reason is subjective and petty at best?

3. Shall a pro se plaintiff be granted counsel in a case

that becomes complex to prosecute as in the shifting burden
model of discrimination?

4. Is it in the nation’s best interest to uphold the age
and other discrimination laws in the face of an ever aging
population and an ever changing economy that displaces
individuals from traditional jobs and places them in new
situations dominated by other classes and groups?

li
LIST OF PARTIES

All the parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover
page. The petitioner is an individual and no corporate
disclosure statement is provided.

iil

TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPINIONS BELOW....... Nek Pare et coe e |
PE iain 0A asic tas Sinveccnneecevevaine 1
CONSTITUTIONAL AND. ...............0eeeeees l
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................+. 2
REASONS FOR GRANTING...........2 2.020000 a
THE WRIT
IT iia vins ceismikevrinctkassasinsenten 9

APPENDICLIES

US COURT OF APPEALS ORDER.......... App.1
US DISTRICT COURT ORDER............. App. 6

CASE SOURCE DOCUMENTS............. App. 10

iv

TABLE OF AUTORITIES
CASES
McDonnell Dougias v GreeN................
411 US 792 (1973)
Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing .............. 5

Products, Inc. 530 US 133 (2000)

Carey v Mt Desert Island Hospital.
No. 97-1661 (1* Cir, 1998)

STATUTES

ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seg. .......

Title VII, Civil Rights Act Of 1964,
4% U.S.C. 2000e et seq.

PR NIE Seba sdnchabsnsesecccssceee

120 TLCS 3/26-1 (11) ................

eer ereses

sviieiedi 2

eeerereaerse

i
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to
review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals appears
at Appendix app |. of this petition and is not known to be
published.

JURISDICTION

The United States Court of Appeals decided this case on
November 2, 2007. No petition for rehearing was timely
filed in this case. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked
under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Freedom of Speech.

2

a Age Discrimination in Employment Act
29U.S.C. 621 ~-634

: 3S Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
42 U.S.C. 2000e — 2000e-17

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Plaintiff, Mr. Nowak age 45, was an
experienced school bus driver when he was hired by the
Defendant, TJA. Nowak attended only three hours or so of
classroom training in July 2002. The Defendants entire .
training and office staff at the time was female. Brenda
Kroll, one of the Defendant’s trainers, became
unreasonably angry with Nowak. She accused him of a
laundry list of driving offenses even though he had not yet
driven for TJA. These alleged offenses included refusing
and failing to remove his hands from the steering wheel
while driving, and refusing and failing to change all tires on
the bus even if only one required replacement. She went so
far as to state Nowak was ™too old to be retrained”. The
next day the Kathy Smith the route coordinator fired
Nowak. The other trainees a women and younger man
were allowed to finish training which lasted a minimum of
2 weeks.

The Plaintiff then filed a complaint with the I}linois
Department of Human Rights (IDHR), Charge number
2003CA2552. A fact finding conference was help by the
Department in November of 2003. In attendance were
Erdman, Smith, Prestley, Kroll, the Plaintiff, and the
Department’s investigator. The Defendants claimed that
Nowak failed training. This is a change from the
explanation that Smith and Erdmann offered in 2002. The

3

Defendants have never produced the results of any
standardized written or driving test that would indicate a
score that would prohibit him from driving. In fact no
standardized tests were administered and furthermore the
Plaintiff already processed a valid commercial drivers
license with proper endorsements.

Additionally the Defendants’ trainer, Kroll, accused
the Plaintiff Mr. Nowak of intentionally using bus heaters
to punish children. Children were not present during
training and the Defendants have not supplied the names of
any children who
were abused by the use of bus heaters. It is a fact that the
Defendants, as school employees, are mandated reporters
of child abuse. (325 ILCS 5/4) It is a criminal offense of
disorderly conduct to make a false report of child abuse to
an agency. ( 720 ILCS 5/26-1 (11) )

The Illinois Department of Human Rights dismissed
the case for lack of substantial evidence in order to
proceed. The Plaintiff requested the EEOC review the
case. The EEOC in short order agreed with IDHR and
issued a right to sue letter. The Plaintiff also filed an
appeal, pro se, from the IDHR in the Illinois Court of
Appeals. This Court upheld the IDHR order to dismiss.

The Plaintiff then filed a case, pro se, with U. S.
District Court, Hlinois Northern District, Western Division,
3:05 C 50161. That case proceeded with some discovery.
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The
court ruled in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff then
filed an appeal, pro se, ( No. 07-1605 ) with the U. S. Court
of Appeals. The US Court of Appeals 7” decided to affirm
the district court on November 2, 2007. A mandate was
issued on November 26, 2007.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

#

The first Amendment surely provides the Petitioner
Mr. Nowak the right to question statements made by the
trainer Brenda Kroll. What better place to ask a question
than in the classroom as opposed to behind the wheel on
the highway. Surely the Court would agree the only foolish
question is the one not asked. Any questions Nowak may
have asked were in earnest to command accuracy and
clarity of the subject. The other trainees were allowed to
ask questions without being punished or fired. Nowak’s
only offense is that he dared question Brenda Kroll.

ra

The lower courts erred in granting summary
judgment on conjecture. . The principal deficiency that the
Court of Appeals finds is that Nowak’s “style .... signaled
the possibility that he would take it upon himself to
disregard Illinois or TJA safety mandates ....” (app4 US
Appeal Order). According to this Nowak was fired for
what he may do sometime in the future, maybe. Every
driver who turns the ignition key is a potential accident.
The other trainees were not fired or disciplined for anything
that they said.

Future acts not yet committed are not facts. As to
whether Nowak was rude or disruptive is a matter of
subjective opinion and also not a fact. Furthermore

5

rudeness and safety in any case do not have a direct
connection. The lower courts analysis is flawed.

Also the lower courts completely ignore any
mention of Kroll accusing Nowak of using bus heaters to
punish school children. This is a baseless account on the
part of Kroll. It demonstrates that she is willing to say
anything in order to have Nowak fired and keep him fired,
even lie. Much of what she has sworn to is misquoted and
outright lies. There is no documentation in the record from
the day in question to support any of her stories. Even the
other women, Smith and Prestley, who have sworn
statements against Nowak do not agree or support Kroll’s
stories.

Nowak cannot imagine what he could possibly have
done to Kroll in such a short time that she would hate his so
much. These stories by Kroll and Smith and adopted by

TJA are no more than pretext. Reeves v Sanderson
Plumbing Products Inc. 50 US 133 (2000) states “ a
Plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient
evidence to find that the employer’s justification is false,
may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer
unlawfully discriminated.” Gordon v United Airlines, Inc.
246 F.3d 878,893(7" cir, 2001) further supports Nowak in
this assertion. Here the Circuit reversed summary
judgment to the employer noting that “our faithful
adherence to the Supreme Court’s holding in Reeves will
tolerate no other conclusion.

TJA really does not have a legitimate business

necessity to have fired Nowak. McDonnell Douglas v

Green 411 US 792 (1973). The burden of proof never
shifts back to the Plaintiff in this case. Even if he behaved

in the manner that TJA would have the courts believe they

6

still have not shown in the record that they have used any
of these issues to fire or even discipline any similarly
situated women or younger men. TJA has created a special
set of undocumented requirements that they have used
against a 45 year old man only. Ladies and gentleman this
is textbook discrimination. é:

C vM s ital No. 97-1 .
Cir. 1998) supports Nowak’s Title VII claim. Here women
were given progressive discipline over time. A male vice
president was fired by a female C E O. The jury viewed
the defendant’s assertion of business necessity in this case
as only a suggestion.

3.

The Petitioner, Mr. Nowak finds it very
dehumanizing that he would have to process this case all
the way to the U S Supreme Court without representation.
Every attorney that he approached were of the consensus
that the 7 Circuit does not enforce the anti discrimination
laws. This is such an impossible task for a pro se litigant to
succeed in doing. Indeed Nowak has found first hand that
the lower courts accept whatever the Defendants assert as
automatic fact and anything he presents as immaterial,
irrelevant or simply ignored.

Mr. Nowak motioned for appointment of counsel
and was turned down because his spouse has income. The
Defendant’s use tax money, to have a four name law firm
make a simple matter into a federal case. Basically this
case is a simply parking ticket. The Defendant’s should be
adult enough to admit their deficiency and pay the fine.
They made no effort to collect any facts outside of what
their female trainers had told them. They have not shown

7

that Nowak has violated any law rule or regulation with
respect to school bus diving. Had the court appointed
counsel Nowak would have been better able to advance his
position in the proper form.

Perhaps of most interest to the Court and the
country is the age of our population. There are 80 million
baby boomers over the age of forty. Not all will require
protection against age discrimination, but we need to know
that the courts will enforce the ADEA. The economy
is a dime balancing on its edge. It does not take mush to tip
it into recession. The housing and credit markets are near
crisis. A vast majority of people over 40 depend on their
paychecks to participate in American life.

The courts cannot continue to funnel decisions in
favor of the defendants for petty or obviously questionable
reasons. Older Americans need to know the courts will be
there for them. These laws are to govern the employers and
protect the individuals. 45 year old plaintiffs are mature
enough to know when there rights have been violated. The
courts discretion needs to err on the side of enforcing the
protections, not allowing the employer a get out of jail free
card. If employers knew the statutes had teeth there
would be less need to bring cases to court.

In summary the statutes provide for equal
opportunity in employment and training between the age
and gender groups. There is enough difference between the

facts of the Defendant’s TJA and the Plaintiff Nowak to
require a jury to decide who is telling the truth. There is
sufficient case law to require this case move to trial. It is in
the nation’s best interests to enforce these laws and keep
people working. What is missing is the courts have the will
to move this to trial.

TJA and employers in general are subject to little
accountability. They become abusive in ever increasing
degrees, much like an addict. The courts have now taken
on the role of enabler. They allow the addict to continue
unchecked. The Defendants need to admit their abuse and
reconcile their trespasses in order for the healing to begin.
The courts need to be party to the healing not the addiction.

In this case the simply fact is the Defendant’s
Brenda Kroll had gotten her shorts in a bunch about
something. We can only guess. / may be she hates here
father. It may be she is jealous that Ronald Erdman is her
boss. She may be a man hater in general. She may have a
brain tumor. She enlisted the help of her bus diving sisters
to dupe Ron Erdmann into taking the credit for firing
Nowak This apparently was not a difficult task and only
illustrates the severe female gender bias this employer has.

The Plaintiff — Petitioner, Nowak, and the honest
hard working people of this nation do not need the United
States Supreme Court to affirm summary judgment in favor
of an abusive and self serving employer. The lower courts
have already done that. What Nowak seeks here is to have
the case go before a jury. They will know what to do.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE: for the above stated reasons and
any the Court may deem appropriate the Petitioner prays
that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

App. 1

App. |

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United

States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit, Chicago, Illinois 60604
Before
Hon. Richard A Posner
Hon. Diane P. Wood
Hon. Dianne S. Sykes

No. 07 - 1605
Jerome J. Nowak Appeal from the Unite States
Plaintiff-Appellant District Court for the
Northem
Vv. District of Illinois, Westem
Transportation Joint
Agreement of Community No. 05 C 50151
Consolidated School
District No. 47 and Community _— Philip G. Reinhard
District No. 155
Defendant- Appellee

ORDER

* After examination of the briefs and the record, we have conchuded that oral
argument is unnecessary.

Transportation Joint Association (“TJA”), a

App. 2

cooperative formed by two northern Illinois school districts
to bus their students, hired Jerome Nowak as a driver on a
probationary basis. He reported for training at the end of
July 2002 but was terminated on his second day. In this
action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000¢.17, Nowak
claims that TJA fired him on account of his age and gender.
The district court granted summary judgment for TJA,
and we affirm.

Nowak was 45 when he accepted a job with TJA.
At the time he had three years’ experience driving a bus for
a different school district, and twice before he had
declined offers of employment from the defendant.
Nowak started his training with two other probationary
drivers, 52 year old Sheila Cudworth and 31 year old
Daniel Lahl. At summary judgment, TJA submitted
evidence that several times during the first day of training
Nowak questioned the correctness of instructions given
the trainees by TJA employees Brenda Kroll and Penny
Prestley. The other trainees did not challenge the
instructors’ directions. Kroli and Prestley ended the
session by privately admonishing Nowak for being
disruptive, and afterward they reported to their supervisor,
Kathy Smith, that Nowak had been belligerent and
argumentative, and that his comments during the training
session left them concerned that he would not follow
Illinois law or TJA's safety policies. According to the
defendant's evidence, Smith immediately passed on these
concerns to Dr. Ronald Erdman, the executive director of
TJA, who spoke with Kroll and Prestley and then decided
that Nowak should be fired. Smith communicated that
decision to Nowak the next day.

App. 3

TJA notified Nowak when it moved for summary
judgment that his response must comply with the district.
court's Local Rule 56.1. That rule requires, among other
things, that the opponent of a motion for summary
judgment submit a supporting memorandum of law. See
N.D. 111. Loc. R. 56.1(bX2). Nowak did not provide the
court with a memorandum setting out his legal arguments.
And in his response to TJA's statement of uncontested
facts, he did not deny that he contradicted his trainers or
that they reported to Smith and Erdman that he was
combative during the training session.

In granting summary judgment for TJA, the district
court observed that the absence of a memorandum of law
from Nowak had hampered the court's ability to understand
his response to TJA's statement of uncontested facts. The
omission of the required memorandum, the court
explained, was reason enough to grant TJA's motion. The
court, added, however, that even aside from the rule
violation Nowak lacked sufficient evidence to warrant a
trial on his claims of age and gender discrimination.

On appeal Nowak says nothing about Local Rule 56.1, but
the district court's application of that rule, which we review
only for abuse of discretion. Greer v. Bd. of Educ., 267
F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001), is reason enough to sustain
the judgment. A district court may insist upon strict
adherence to its local rules even from a pro se litigant,
McK2il v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993);
Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809,
817 (7th Cir. 2004), and if a party opposing summary
judgment fails to comply with its obligations under Local
Rule 56.1, the court may in its discretion deem the motion
unopposed, see Greer, 267 F.3d at 727. Local Rule
56.1(b\(2) requires the opponent of a motion for summary

App. 4

judgment to file a supporting memorandum of law.
Nowak did not comply, and on that basis alone the
district court was within its authority to grant summary
judgment to TJA.

In any event, the district court analyzed the
parties’ evidence and concluded that TJA was entitled to
summary judgment. We agree. Nowak argues here that
he was proceeding under the indirect method of proof and
that his evidence established a prima facie case of age and
gender discrimination. See Ptasznik v. St. Joseph Hosp.,
464 F.3d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 2006); Gore v. Ind. Univ., 416
F.3d 590, 592 (7th Cir. 2005). But there is no evidence to
dispute that TJA fired Nowak because the employees
tasked with training him concluded that his
confrontational style was rude and disruptive, and
signalea the possibility that he would take it upon
himself to disregard Illinois or TJA safety mandates that
he deemed ill-advised. Whether we view this evidence
through the lens of the prima facie case or in terms of
pretext, it is clear that Nowak was not performing up to
TJA's legitimate expectations, and that he presented
nothing to refute their contention that he was fired for
that reason and no other. See Hague v. Thompson Distrib.
Co., 436 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2006); Coco v. Elmwood
Care Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1997).

Nowak spends much of his brief arguing that his
criticisms of Kroll and Prestley's directives were valid,
and that TJA should have listened to him instead of firing
him. But insisting on the invalidity of the TJA's safety
curriculum simply reinforces the sincerity of TJA's stated
reason for his termination. In any event, the argument
misses the mark. The relevant inquiry is whether there is
evidence from which a finder of fact reasonably could

App. 5

conclude that the decision to end Nowak's employment
was unlawful; whether it was wise or even fair is not for
the courts to decide. See Ptasznik, 464 F.3d at 697.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Name of, Philip G. Sittin
igned ; J ‘
hae oe Reinhard | other than
Magistrate Assigned
Judge Judge
CASE 05 C 50161 DATE 2/9/20
CASE Jerome J. Nowak vs. Transportation Joint
TITLE Agreement School District 47, and School
District 155
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion for
summary judgment is granted. This case is hereby
dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Jerome J. Nowak, pro se brings this
action against defendant, Transportation Joint
Agreement School Dist. 47 and School Dist. 155.
Plaintiff was terminated after his first day of
employment (a training course) by defendant. He claims
the firing was because of his age in violation of the Age

App. 7

Discrimination in-Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et
seg, and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seg. Federal question
jurisdiction exists for this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
.Defendant moves for summary judgment.

Despite having been served with the "Notice to
Pro Se Litigant Opposing Summary Judgment" plaintiff
has not complied with LR 56.1. He has not filed a
memorandum of law supporting his opposition to
summary judgment which makes it difficult to make
sense of his LR 56.1 (b) (3) responses to defendant's
statement of facts and his statement of additional facts.

In Vv. i
267 F.3d 723, 727 (7° Cir. 2001), the court stated the
district court would have been within its discretion to
grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment
based strictly on the pro se plaintiff's failure to comply
with the local summary judgment rule. In Greer the
plaintiff provided no meaningful response to defendant's
statement of facts, filed a statement of additional facts
with no citation to any evidentiary support in the record
and filed a brief described as a “jumbled mass of
information (none of which was referenced in his Rule
56.1 statement)." Here, plaintiff has not offered legal
arguments as to why summary judgment should be
denied leaving the court to try to discern these arguments
from the statements of fact. This failure to comply with
LR 56.1 is sufficient reason to grant summary judgment
for defendant.

Even looking at the facts in the record, it is clear
plaintiff has no claim. Plaintiff has no evidence. direct or
circumstantial, of a discriminatory motive in his
termination so he cannot proceed under the direct method
for proving either age or sex discrimination. See Ptasznik
v. St. Joseph Hosp.. 464 F.3d 691, 695 (7" Cir. 2006). To

establish a prima facie case under the indirect method for
age discrimination plaintiff must show 1) he is in a
protected class, 2) he was performing his job in accord
with his employer's legitimate expectations. 3) he was
subjected to an adverse employment action, and 4)
similarly situated employees outside the protected class
were treated more favorably. Id. at 696. The test is the
same for a sex discrimination claim, except that when it
is brought by a man the first prong is different. In the
case of a man the plaintiff must show background
circumstances that demonstrate a particular employer has
reason to discriminate against men or evidence there is
something "fishy" about the facts. Gore v. Indiana
University. 416 F.3d 590, 592 (7" Cir. 2005). If the prima
facie case is met, then defendant must offer a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff.
Ptasznik at 696. When defendant has done so, the burden
shifts back to plaintiff to prove the stated reason was a
pretext.

Here, the facts show plaintiff was hired by
defendant to be a bus driver. Defendant required its bus
drivers to undergo training. On the first day of training,
plaintiff questioned several things about the propriety of
the course and was perceived by the trainers to be
disruptive. The court gathers from the record that
plaintiff did not think he was disruptive but was simply
asking questions about the wisdom of some of the things
being taught. Cutting to the pretext analysis, plaintiff
has offered no evidence ‘that defendants articulated
reason for dismissing him was a lie. The record clearly
shows defendants employees involved in the training
thought plaintiff was a problem. Every question plaintiff
asked may have been valid, but it is not the court's "role

App. 9

to determine the competency of or interfere in
employment decisions simply where we believe an
employer has made a poor choice. Federal courts have
authority to correct an adverse employment action only
where the employer's decision is unlawful, not merely
when the adverse action is unwise or unfair.” Id. at 697.
Plaintiff has simply failed to show any evidence that the
reason given for his termination was a pretext.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for
summary judgment is granted. This case is dismissed in
its entirety with prejudice.

Jerome Nowak
P.O. Box 1420
Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014

November 13, 2003

Illinois Department of
Human Rights

100 W. Randolph
Chicago, Illinois

Attn: Victoria Brown

RE: Fact finding conference November 13th, 2003.
Claim #2003CA2552, respondent Transportation

Joint Agreement

As of this date the complainant has not received an
answer to the charge.

The Complainant would like to set forth the
following facts at this time. He had owned an intrastate
delivery service and held a commercial type drivers license
from 1984 to 1990. In February of 1999 he applied to work
as a school bus driver at both CCSD 15 in Palatine, 111. and
TJA (districts 47 & 155) in his home town of Crystal Lake
111 The wages and benefits were better in Palatine so he
started working for them. This required once again that he

App. 11

obtain a commercial drivers license He worked at district 15
for 3 1/2 years. Several times during those years the
complainant checked to see the level of wages at TJA in
Crystal Lake The complainant even had a long interview with
Rich Hansen who showed off the soon to open addition to the
facility. Hansen did not seem to have a problem with his
answers at the interview and invited him to work for TJA
when ready to make the change.

During the summer of 2002 the complainant applied
at TJA. A informational meeting was held in July. Mr.
Hansen was out on sick leave and Kathy Smith conducted the
meeting. There were as many as 10 applicants present that
were accepted for training and employment The group
broke up and set training times with individual trainers. The
Complainant met Brenda Kroll who said she had worked at
Palatine. She said that TJA is much more supportive of their
drivers.

On July 30th 2002 the Complainant arrived at TJA
and happened to meet Kroll on her way in. Kroll said they
would start training right away. Inside there were two
trainees, a man and woman, from there appearance seemed to
be younger than 40. These two are potential witnesses.

During the training Kroll brought up several
transportation issues that are contrary to the complainant’s
prior experience. One issue was the use of recapped tires.
Mr. Nowak understands that it is prohibited to use recaps
on the front sieering axle of a bus. Recaps may be used on
the rear drive and trailer axles. Kroll stated that if one
recap was used that all the tires would need to be changed
to recaps. Nowak told Kroll that he never heard this

App. 12

explained in such a manner. Kroll left to ask a mechanic if
recaps could be mixed on the rear axle. She returned with a
puzzled look and explained that the mechanic agreed that
recaps. could be mixed, then added that “but no self
respecting mechanic would”.

The complainant does not understand this answer.
Either the use of recaps is allowed or it is not. After he was
fired by Smith Mr. Nowak called Crystal Lake Tire Inc.
who services trucks and busses. He was informed that
Crystal Lake Tire does mix recaps on the rear axles with no
problem. Nowak also contacted J. Dlisa at Elgin
Community College's commercial driving program. H*
also agreed that re-caps could be mixed.

Other topics that were covered included pre-trip
inspections. One of the trainees asked if the buses were
front wheel drive. Kroll again left to ask a mechanic. She
returned with the answer that all the buses were rear wheel
drive. This action concerned the complainant. It did not
seem right that the person who was going to instruct in the
proper inspection of the chassis and underside of the vehicle
was not familiar with it

The discussion continued until a motorcycle parked
just outside the window of the training room. Kroll stop the
training briefly and talked with another trainer (Penny?)
who was present. The other trainer wanted to know if
Kroll drove motorcycles. She answered “No. I only ride
“bitch”. This is not the level of professionalism, or better
stated lack thereof that the complainant would expect from
the trainers at his new employer.

The group later went on a demonstration ride with

App. 13

Kroll driving. Bus #180 was used. It was equipped with air
brakes and bar type air pressure gauge. She made a pre-trip
inspection. This did not include going under the bus and
moving the slack adjusters as described in the CDL study
guide. The mirror grid was not used for inspection either.
While on this trip Kroll displayed at least two disturbing
practices.

She was explaining how to check if the brakes pulled.
After moving the bus forward at about 5 to 10 miles per hour
she removed both hands from the steering wheel, placed them
over her head in a “V” and sharply applied the brakes. Mr.
Nowak would hope everybody appreciates there is no driving
situation when removing both hands is acceptable.

Later in the trip Kroll was simulating a bus stop
with children. She signaled the 8-way flashers and
stopped. She set the parking brake and then applied the
foot brake. Somebody asked why apply both? Her
answer was the most concerning yet. She explained “it is
twice as safe, like wearing two condoms”. The
complainant later consulted the CDL study guide-and Mr.
Disa at ECC. The modern air brake system is set up to
relieve any pressure from the foot pedal while the parking
brake is applied. If the spring pressure of the parking brake
was added to the air pressure of the foot brake a condition
called compounding could exist. This added pressure
could crack the brake shoes, drums and seriously damage
other parts. The study guide advises to never apply the
foot brake while the parking brake is on. In fact the Motor
Carrier Regulations require a vehicle in such condition to

fail inspection and be taken out of service.

Further on the trip Kroll stated to use utility poles to
measure the distance before your stops. The poles she
stated are exactly 50 feet apart. She did not explain what
to use in places void of utility poles.

After returning to bus yard the other trainees were
dismissed. Kroll then tumed her attention to the
complainant and became cross. She insisted that Mr.
Nowak was “trained wrong” at District 15 in Palatine.
She stated that he failed to pre-trip the air brakes
correctly, failed to set the brakes at the stops, left his
routes with children on board. Mr. Nowak tried to calm
her down. He stated that she was not present when he
was trained. That all the school bus operators are
governed by the same laws rules and standards as TJA.

From there Kroll met with Kathy Smith. In Mr.
Nowak's presence she told Smith of his driving
deficiencies, keep in mind that Mr. Nowak was not driving.
Kroll told Mr. Nowak that she needed to work with the
other trainees and to return the next afternoon. When he
did, Smith was there with a form letter stating the position
was not being offered. Smith restated the driving
complaints Kroll used the day before and added that Mr.
Nowak did not use the mirror grid. It is not clear whether
Kathy Smith has the authority to fire Mr. Nowak. That
decision may need to be made by a governing board.

The complainant, Mr. Nowak is shocked by this
outcome. In the fall of 2002 he returned to observe the TJA
bus yard and the Crystal Lake way of training. What he
found was exactly what he expected. No driver went under

App. 15

the buses to inspect the slack adjusters. No flashlights were
used in the predawn hours to inspect underneath. No
driver used the mirror grid. Only two drivers could be
heard fanning the air tanks down to check safety devices.
The drivers at TJA were no better at their jobs than Mr.

Nowak.

Soon after Smith gave out the
letter Mr. Nowak contacted Representative Jack
Franks to help find out what may be the problem at
TJA. Franks office asked TJA to respond. Ron
Erdmann called by telephone and repeated word
for word what Kroll and Smith had stated earlier.
Erdmann is not a witness and information about Mr.
Nowak's driving abilities he has is hearsay.

The complainant has been unemployed since
July 2002. He has had no success at district 300
Algonquin, 200 Woodstock, 156 Huntley. These
districts are close and the managers seem to know
each other. District 300 specifically asked why Mr.
Nowak was not working at TJA. He knows he made
no wrongful act or violated any law, rule or
regulation, nothing that would require his termination.

Mr. Nowak knows of no other driver who
was fired for the alleged offenses stated by Knoll,
Smith and Erdmann. He also does not know of any
driver who has received a traffic citation for any such
offenses.

As a comparison Brenda Kroll had worked at
Palatine and if we are to believe her own words was "
trained wrong”. Yet she has worked for TJA many

App. 16

years and has been placed in a position of
responsibility and reward. Also in the interview with
Rich Hansen it was discovered that the driver
involved with the fatal bus train collision was not
terminated. She remained in the office until she
retired. A pattern of protecting the women drivers
seems to be emerging.

Brenda Kroll did not display a high degree of
professionalism. She surely is not the final word in
transportation safety. Her allegations of Mr. Nowak's
poor driving habits are fabrication and not based on
fact. Kroll, Smith and Erdmann work together and
may be protecting each other. Mr. Nowak came to
TJA with a Valid CDL, school bus permit and three
current years school bus experience. He has a very
good driving record and is qualified to perform this
work. Whatever reason the TJA has for terminating
Mr. Nowak is not a legitimate business reason.

App. 17

MEMO

TO: Dr. Don Erdmann

FROM: Kathy Smith

RE: Jerome Nowak ~ Human Rights
Hearing:

DATE: November 17, 2003

Smith, Brenda Kroll, and Penny Prestley went to the
Center m Chicago for a hearing with Jerome
and hearing officer Victoria Brown.
Nowak was interviewed first by the
hearing officer:

Hansen as positive

Nowak reported that he thought he was in the
wrong traiming class, he possessed a CDL, but was
inchuded in a class with brand new drivers
Nowak was «unsettled by the fact that trainer
Brenda Kroll got confirmation from an outside
front wheel drive buses, and rear re-capped tires.
He later remarked that he felt she might think he
was "questioning her authority”.
question "Where are all the men"

Nowak remarked that he never had 2n opportunity
to talk to “a man”.

App. 18

loading students. He said he her about
the practice and she remarked "it's safer, like
wearing two condoms”

trouble, if not for getting Brenda for a trainer
Nowak stated that after he was dismissed he called
TJA several times looking for Director Rich

tee Mile stand, FH feat dhs ie Wetlees ad shoke

App. 19

them sit down; if the kids misbehave Mr. Hansen
would understand “Bus humor”.

e Nowak stated several times that “women” have
the majority of the bus driving jobs.

e Nowak stated that he was upset when Kathy
Smith terminated him. He stated no appropriate
reason was given

* Nisa GG Gia bee Ghd it know be was 8

probationary employee
Response from Brenda Kroll, Penny Prestiey

e Kroll stated that Nowak made several negative
remarks regarding women in training

e Kroll stated that Nowak was very disruptive in
classroom training - challenging most statements
and making inappropriate comments in front of
both trainers and the other trainers

e Kroll states that there was a comment about
riding “bitch” in the classroom- but pertaining to
a shirt worm by someone walking by the
window

e Kroll and Prestley stated that Nowak did say
that he would not set the parking brake or fan
down the brakes as prescribed by Illinois State
Law.

e Kroll stated that she did have a conference with
Nowak during a break asking him to refrain from the
remarks and interruptions he was making during the
classroom portion of his training.

e Kroll denied the “condom” remark

e Prestley confirmed Kroll's allegations of
Nowith disruptive behavior during classroom
training

Response from Kathy Smith

e Smith confirmed that the action Kroll took “letting go
of the wheel, and depressing the service break” was

App. 20

correct. Not only is it part of the training curriculum,
but also on the CDL driving test

Smith responded to the statement Nowak made about
Pat Catencamp (the driver of the bus that was hit by a
train in Fox River Grove had not been dismissed
because she was found to be not at fault by the NTSB.
Ms. Catencamp did not at any time have any charges
placed awainst her. Nowak also made the statement
that Brenda Kroll herself had not been discharged and
she had begun her career as a school bus driver at
Palatine, the same as Nowak. No statement was made.
Smith stated that Brenda Kroll did come to her for
confirmation of buses being front wheel drive.

Smith confirmed that both trainers (Brenda Kroll &
Penny Prestley) did come to her with huge concerns
about Nowak.

Smith stated that she did ask Nowak two questions
after his first training session.

1. Will you fan down the brakes to do a State of
Illinois Mandatory brake check each day. Answer —
NO. 2. Will you set the parking brake at each stop
when loading and unloading students. Answer - No.
Smith stated that she did dismiss Nowak the
following day. Smith stated she gave Nowak a letter
confirming this and reasons why.

Smith stated she called Dr. Ron Erdmann at home to
discuss Nowak

Smith confirmed that Nowak did call TJA for several
days after his dismissal, looking for a male supervisor
Smith stated that on the worksheet given to a
prospective employee it states that there is a
probationary period of 90 days. Smith stated

she was the one that hired Nowak, and did
provide the worksheet.

Response for Dr. Ron Erdmann:

Erdmann provided Victoria Brown with a copy
of the TLCL contract and a copy of the TJA
handbook

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386020_1335%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.