Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18296

Background

Plaintiff Fozyia Huri, a Muslim woman from Saudi Arabia who wore a hijab, worked for Cook County (beginning 2000) and alleged repeated discrimination and harassment by supervisors while a child care attendant and later in the Court Reporters’ Office.
Supervisors (Sylvia McCullum, Marilyn Filishio, James Lawless) allegedly made religiously themed comments/prayer, favored Christians, subjected Huri to false criticisms, different rules, exclusion from social functions, denial of holiday leave, restrictions affecting her daughter, and increased scrutiny.
Huri filed internal complaints and three EEOC charges (May 2010 pro se; April 2011 technical correction; November 2011 with counsel covering post-transfer allegations) and received right-to-sue letters.
She sued under Title VII (hostile work environment and retaliation) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection claims alleging religious/national-origin discrimination), alleging retaliation after complaining.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) (and granted qualified immunity on some constitutional claims); the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Huri exhausted administrative remedies for Title VII hostile work environment claims arising before Nov. 2011	Huri argued her May 2010 EEOC charge alleging "harassment" on account of religion/national origin and internal complaints put employer on notice and covers hostile-work-environment allegations	Defendants argued the May 2010 charge did not allege a "hostile work environment" and so precludes earlier claims	Held: Reversed — the May 2010 charge (liberally construed) reasonably related to hostile-work-environment claims; exhaustion satisfied
Whether the Second Amended Complaint met Twombly/Iqbal plausibility for Title VII retaliation	Huri alleged protected activity (EEOC/internal complaints) and adverse actions (false reports, exclusion, denial of leave, mistreatment of daughter) that would deter a reasonable worker	Defendants argued pleadings lacked sufficient factual detail to be plausible	Held: Reversed — complaint plausibly alleged retaliation and gave fair notice under Rule 8
Whether the Second Amended Complaint met Twombly/Iqbal plausibility for Title VII hostile work environment	Huri pleaded harassment based on religion/national origin by supervisors over many years, with examples of conduct (prayers, shunning, differential treatment)	Defendants contended the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive as pled	Held: Reversed — allegations are plausibly severe or pervasive enough at pleading stage; discovery may determine proof
Whether § 1983 equal protection (hostile work environment) claims survive and whether qualified immunity applies to supervisors	Huri urged § 1983 parallel claims to Title VII hostile work environment; supervisors are not entitled to immunity for obvious constitutional violations	Defendants argued § 1983 claims fail or that supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity	Held: Reversed as to § 1983 — hostile-work-environment claims survive (parallel to Title VII); qualified immunity was improperly granted at pleading stage for Filishio and Lawless (rights were clearly established)

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Vill. of Arlington Hts., 782 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard of review on motion to dismiss; construing facts in plaintiff's favor)
Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1994) (purpose and notice function of EEOC charge requirement)
Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards in discrimination cases under Twombly/Iqbal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
Chaib v. Indiana, 744 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2014) (definition of adverse action in retaliation context)