Hanson v. Levan
1:15-cv-05354
N.D. Ill.Jul 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are former Milton Township employees: five deputy assessors and one IT administrator allegedly fired shortly after the newly elected Assessor, Chris Levan, took office in January 2014.
- Plaintiffs’ third-amended complaint reasserts multiple claims: § 1983 First Amendment retaliation, § 1983 equal protection (age and disability), ADEA, IHRA, FLSA, Illinois wage claims (IMWL, IWPCA), and ADA claims/retaliation for one plaintiff.
- Defendants moved to partially dismiss certain claims in Counts II (equal protection), VII (IWPCA), and IX (equal protection-disability), and objected to repleaded claims previously dismissed by the court.
- The court previously dismissed several claims in an April 6, 2016 order; Plaintiffs replead some of those claims to preserve them for appeal.
- The court evaluated Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standards and whether Plaintiffs may plead inconsistent/alternative theories, and whether sufficient allegations support an employment agreement or policy for IWPCA liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repleading previously dismissed claims (Counts I, III, IV, V, VI) | Repleaded to preserve claims for appeal; allegations remain | Previously-dismissed claims should remain dismissed | Dismissed — repleaded claims remain dismissed for same reasons as prior order |
| § 1983 Equal protection — age (Deputy Assessors, Popa) and disability (Fernald, Zinga) (Counts II, IX) | Termination may be politically motivated or alternatively due to age/disability; pleads facts supporting discrimination | Plaintiffs cannot plead inconsistent reasons for termination (political vs. age/disability) | Denied — alternative/inconsistent pleading permitted; equal protection claims survive plausibility review |
| IWPCA — sufficiency of pleading that wages/final compensation were due under an agreement or policy (Count VII) | Alleged personnel policy and facts plausibly show an agreement entitling plaintiffs to unused leave/overtime | No employment contract/agreement alleged to support IWPCA recovery | Denied — allegations plausibly suggest an enforceable policy/agreement; merits to be examined at summary judgment |
| IWPCA against Township and Levan individually | IWPCA’s employer definition is broad; individuals/officers can be liable if they knowingly permit violations | Plaintiffs did not allege facts showing employment relationship with Township or individual liability for Levan | Granted as to these defendants — IWPCA claims against the Township and Levan in his individual capacity dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 673 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2012) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading and inference principles)
- Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2002) (procedural posture relevant to amendment practice)
- E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2007) (Twombly plausibility standard applied in employment context)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard explaining Twombly)
- Deschepper v. Midwest Wine & Spirits, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (IWPCA requires wages due under an employment contract or agreement)