## Facts

- Cynthia Schoeneck served as the Chicago Cubs’ sole “ballperson” during the 1991 MLB season, wearing a Cubs uniform and performing on-field tasks such as handling foul balls.
- After the 1991 season, the Cubs eliminated the ballperson position and reassigned the duties to an expanded security staff for the 1992 season that included both men and women.
- Schoeneck was told by a Cubs representative that the position was eliminated for “insurance reasons,” but the Cubs later stated the change was for staffing efficiency by combining ball-handling with security duties.
- The person who mentioned “insurance reasons” was not the decision-maker who abolished the position.
- Schoeneck did not apply for any of the security positions created or expanded for the 1992 season.
- Schoeneck asserted that a Cubs official orally promised her continued employment when, after she asked about the next year, the official responded “you got it” and allegedly indicated she could keep the job as long as she wanted.

## Issues

1. Whether the elimination of the ballperson position and reassignment of its duties to security staff permitted a reasonable inference of sex discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether the alleged statements (“you got it” and “as long as you wanted”) created an enforceable oral employment contract under Illinois law, such that eliminating the position constituted breach.

## Decision

- The court granted the Cubs’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- On the Title VII claim, the court found insufficient evidence that the position was eliminated “because of” sex or that the Cubs’ stated reason (staffing efficiency) was pretext for discrimination.
- On the oral-contract claim, the court held the alleged assurances were too indefinite to establish a contract for continued employment and did not overcome Illinois’s presumption of at-will employment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII, eliminating a position and transferring its duties, without evidence of discriminatory motive, disparate treatment, or replacement by a person outside the protected class, does not alone support an inference of sex discrimination.
- Shifting or inconsistent explanations do not establish pretext where the earlier statement is attributable to a non-decision-maker and the record lacks evidence the decision-maker’s stated reason is a cover for discrimination.
- An employee who does not apply for an available position generally cannot base a failure-to-hire or failure-to-transfer theory on being denied that position.
- Illinois employment is presumptively at-will; oral statements about future employment must be sufficiently definite as to duration and terms to create an enforceable contract.
- Vague assurances such as “you got it” or statements suggesting indefinite employment “as long as you want,” without definite terms and without additional consideration, are typically not enforceable promises of continued employment.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the Cubs, concluding that Schoeneck’s evidence did not permit a reasonable jury to find sex-based discrimination in the team’s staffing reorganization and that the alleged oral assurances were too indefinite to create a binding contract overcoming at-will employment.


Schoeneck v. Chi. Nat’l League Ball Club, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 696 (N.D. Ill. 1994)