Schoeneck v. Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
867 F. Supp. 696 (1994)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Cynthia Schoeneck (plaintiff) was the sole ballperson for the Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. (Cubs) (defendant) during the 1991 season. Schoenick dressed in a Cubs uniform and performed on-field duties. The Cubs eliminated her position after the 1991 season and assigned her duties to the enhanced security staff, of both males and females, that was hired for 1992. Per the Cubs, the extra security staff could perform these duties easily. Schoeneck did not apply for a security job. Schoeneck asserted that the Cubs originally said her position was eliminated for insurance reasons before later citing making staffing more efficient with the security team, but the Cubs’ employee who referred to insurance was not the person who eliminated Schoeneck’s position. Schoeneck also claimed she entered into an oral contract with the Cubs under which she could be a ballperson either for the 1992 season or for as long as she wanted. This claim was based on an alleged conversation with a Cubs’ official in which she asked, “what about next year?” and the official replied, “you got it,” and said she could keep the job as long as she wanted. Schoeneck sued the Cubs for allegedly (1) engaging in sex discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and (2) breaching the parties’ oral contract. The Cubs moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zagel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.