618 F. App'x 847
6th Cir.2015Background
- Donna Bibbs applied to be a Cook County correctional officer, failed pre-employment polygraph and psychological screens, and received a generic rejection letter; she later alleged racial disparate-impact discrimination under Title VII.
- Plaintiffs amended complaints several times; the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) named four plaintiffs (Bibbs plus three others) and asserted three counts: (I) violation of Illinois law, (II) disparate impact from psychological screening, (III) disparate impact from polygraph false reports.
- Procedural irregularities in the TAC included keeping Bibbs as a named plaintiff despite concessions she was an inadequate class representative and defining a proposed class limited to psychological-screen failures (potentially excluding polygraph claims).
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court dismissed Count I for failing to state a claim, dismissed the three additional plaintiffs for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed Counts II and III as vague as to Bibbs — then entered judgment for defendants.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and found the district court erred in dismissing the additional plaintiffs (exhaustion issue) and in dismissing Counts II and III (claim notice / class-representative issues), but affirmed dismissal of Count I; it reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether additional plaintiffs may be dismissed for failure to exhaust EEOC remedies where the complaint is silent about individual right-to-sue notices | TAC's allegations that “plaintiffs” filed timely EEOC charges and Bibbs received a right-to-sue were sufficient; dismissal improper because failure-to-exhaust is an affirmative defense and not apparent on the face of the TAC | Additional plaintiffs failed to plead receipt of right-to-sue notices or joining within 90 days, so dismissal is warranted | Reversed: district court erred; TAC did not facially show the affirmative defense applied, so additional plaintiffs should not have been dismissed at this stage |
| Whether the “single-filing”/piggyback exception or relation-back/class tolling saves the additional plaintiffs | Argued alternative theories (single-filing exception; relation back to Bibbs’s original complaint to toll deadlines for putative class members) | Defendants disputed applicability; court noted single-filing likely inapplicable where each filed EEOC charges; relation-back not decided below and is discretionary | Court found these arguments unpersuasive or premature; remand allows district court to address relation-back and class-certification issues if raised |
| Whether Counts II & III were properly dismissed for vagueness/for being outside the scope of the EEOC charge and because Bibbs was an inadequate class representative | Bibbs’s EEOC charge alleged disparate impact from tests generally and explicitly referenced either the tests or wrongful disqualification; her claims should proceed; inadequacy as class rep affects certification, not pleading | Defendants said the EEOC charge referenced only one failed test and TAC was internally inconsistent (Bibbs alleged failing two tests while class definition covered only psychological screening), so claims were too vague | Reversed: district court erred — EEOC charge was not limited to a single test and lack of suitability as class representative does not justify dismissal of the individual claims; Counts II and III reinstated |
| Whether Count I properly dismissed for failure to state a claim | Plaintiffs did not adequately plead a plausible statutory or factual basis under Illinois law for Count I | Defendants argued Count I failed to plead sufficient facts | Affirmed: dismissal of Count I stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Thulin v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., 771 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Mosely v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2006) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; dismissal only when defense appears on face of complaint)
- Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2006) (statute-of-limitations dismissal appropriate where complaint shows untimeliness)
- Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2006) (EEOC charge limits litigation claims)
- Horton v. Jackson County Board of County Commissioners, 343 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2003) (single-filing/piggyback exception discussion)
- Holowecki v. Federal Express Corp., 440 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2006) (analysis of single-filing exception and related doctrine)
- Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (relation-back and class-certification discretion)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (class action tolling principles)
- Robinson v. Sheriff of Cook County, 167 F.3d 1155 (7th Cir. 1999) (standing and exhaustion for alternative class representatives)