Fuesting v. Uline, Inc.
30 F. Supp. 3d 739
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Four former Uline employees (Fuesting, Savage, Gehrig, Garza) allege repeated sexual assaults and improper touching by two supervisors (Scott Zingsheim and Jim Small).
- Plaintiffs complained to HR and senior management (including emails to HR and at least one complaint to the CEO); plaintiffs allege no adequate remedial action was taken.
- Two plaintiffs (Fuesting, Savage) were terminated shortly after complaining; Gehrig alleges constructive discharge after complaining.
- Plaintiffs assert Title VII claims (sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation), IGVA claims (Illinois Gender Violence Act) against Uline, and state-law negligent hiring/supervision/retention claims.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) four IGVA counts (Counts III, VII, X, XIII) and four common-law negligence counts (Counts IV, VIII, XI, XIV).
- The court evaluated statutory interpretation of the IGVA and Illinois preemption principles under the IHRA in resolving the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a corporation can be liable as a "person" under the IGVA | IGVA claim may proceed against Uline as the employer of perpetrators | "Person" excludes corporations; IGVA requires "person" to have personally perpetrated gender-related violence | Court: "person" in IGVA does not encompass corporations; IGVA counts against Uline dismissed |
| Whether negligent hiring/supervision/retention claims are preempted by the IHRA | Negligence claims rest on independent common-law duties (preventing assault/battery, supervision, protection), not IHRA duties | Negligence counts are linked to civil-rights violations and thus preempted by IHRA | Court: negligence claims survive to the extent they allege independent tort duties related to assault/battery; dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court draws reasonable inferences and applies plausibility standard)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pate, 275 F.3d 666 (federal courts predict state supreme court rulings; intermediate appellate decisions given weight)
- Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 177 Ill.2d 511 (IHRA preemption focuses on legal duties, not factual overlap)
- Geise v. Phoenix Co. of Chicago, Inc., 159 Ill.2d 507 (case discussed in context of preemption and factual overlap)