54 F. Supp. 3d 922
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Plaintiff Galo P. Macias, a Hispanic male of Ecuadorian descent, worked as a line cook for Bakersfield Restaurant, LLC and was discharged in August 2012.
- During employment Plaintiff alleges his supervisor, Frank Mnuk, made repeated anti-Mexican remarks and treated him worse than non-Hispanic employees.
- In June 2012 Plaintiff reported his iPhone missing; he located the phone at Mnuk’s vehicle/home, accused Mnuk of theft, and reported the matter to the Executive Chef and later the police.
- After reporting the incident Plaintiff alleges Mnuk trained a replacement, stopped scheduling him, delivered a damaged/used phone, and then Plaintiff was terminated without prior discipline.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge (national origin and race discrimination and retaliation) and received a right-to-sue notice; he then filed this suit alleging Title VII national-origin discrimination (Count I), racial discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 (Count II), and state-law retaliatory discharge (Count III).
- Defendant moved to dismiss Counts I and II under Rule 12(b)(6); the Court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s § 1981 claim improperly exceeds EEOC charge scope (i.e., alleges harassment) | Macias says he pleads discrimination (race/national origin), not a separate harassment claim; § 1981 needs no EEOC exhaustion | Bakersfield contends amended complaint implies a harassment claim beyond the EEOC charge and thus should be dismissed | Court: declines to infer a separate harassment claim; Counts I and II properly plead discrimination claims within EEOC scope and survive dismissal |
| Whether the court may consider documents attached to defendant’s brief on Rule 12(b)(6) | Macias argues attachments weren’t part of the complaint and should be excluded | Bakersfield seeks consideration (or conversion to summary judgment) of attached affidavit, FOIA materials, EEOC intake, etc. | Court: excludes the extra documents (except the EEOC charge which is attached to the complaint); declines to convert to summary judgment because consideration would not change result |
| Whether plaintiff may add supervisor’s racist remarks in amended complaint though they weren’t in EEOC charge | Macias: comments are factual background illuminating discriminatory motive and may be added | Bakersfield: remarks go beyond EEOC charge and should be dismissed/struck; background evidence allowed only for a continuing practice | Court: remarks are admissible as background to illuminate animus supporting a discrete act (termination); they need not have been separately alleged in the EEOC charge |
| Whether allegations meet Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard | Macias contends complaint gives fair notice and a plausible narrative supporting discrimination and retaliation claims | Bakersfield contends allegations are insufficient or inconsistent with exhaustion requirements | Court: accepts factual allegations as plausible and gives defendant fair notice; complaint survives 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts and use of untimely acts as background evidence)
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553 (1977) (untimely acts may be relevant background evidence)
- Rush v. McDonald’s Corp., 966 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992) (limitations on litigating discriminatory acts not raised in EEOC charge)
- Levenstein v. Salafsky, 164 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 1998) (when courts may consider outside documents on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Walker v. Abbott Labs., 340 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2003) (§ 1981 does not require EEOC exhaustion)
- West v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm. Corp., 405 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2005) (acts outside time frame may support timely discrete-act claims)