Marshall v. City Of Chicago, 1:23-cv-15696

Charmaine L. Marshall, a pro se plaintiff, contracted through Sunbelt Staffing, LLC to work as a Project Manager for the City of Chicago from February 2022 to February 2023.
Marshall alleged discrimination based on race, color, sex (under Title VII), age (under ADEA), and breach of contract after being terminated from her placement.
The court previously dismissed claims against her supervisor, Tamra Mahal, finding Mahal was not an employer under federal statutes.
The City of Chicago moved to dismiss, contending Marshall was not its employee, and she lacked standing on the contract claim.
Marshall received an EEOC Right to Sue letter and timely filed suit, but did not respond in writing to the motion to dismiss.
The court held oral argument and subsequently granted the City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
City as Employer under Title VII/ADEA	City was effectively her employer; discrimination occurred while on assignment.	City was not her employer; Sunbelt employed and paid her.	For Defendant; no employer-employee relationship.
Sufficiency of Discrimination Allegations	Comments/actions by supervisor amounted to actionable discrimination.	Even if true, not sufficient and City not employer.	For Defendant; allegations insufficient and no employer relationship.
Breach of Contract	She had a contract for a year with the City that was breached upon termination.	No contract existed between City and Marshall; contract was with Sunbelt.	For Defendant; no standing to bring contract claim.
Standing to Seek Remedies	Entitled to remedies for alleged violations.	No legal basis as City was not the employer and no contract privity.	For Defendant; all claims dismissed with prejudice.

Taylor v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 958 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2020) (affirming liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Knight v. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 377 (7th Cir. 1991) (establishing the multi-factor test for determining employer-employee relationship)
Hayden v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 9 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 1993) (confirming application of same test to ADEA claims)
Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) (motion to dismiss standard)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pleading standard on Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (explaining plausibility standard for complaints)
Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture LLC, 926 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2019) (reaffirming standards for pleading sufficiency)