McQueen v. City of Chicago
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30697
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- DOA aviation police officers sue DOA supervisors and City of Chicago for multiple federal/state civil rights claims.
- Second amended complaint asserts §1981, equal protection/due process, FMLA, Title VII, ADA, IHRA, ICRA violations.
- Allege African-American plaintiffs faced discipline, adverse assignments, harassment, and denied promotions compared to non-African-Americans.
- Maurer, Lonergran, O’Connor are high-level DOA officials; Mills, Fitzgerald, Jubera are DOA lieutenants; all defendants moved to dismiss.
- Court denies Maurer’s motion for counts I–V; grants in part and denies in part the others; sets dismissal on scope of charge and disparate impact issues.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctive measures, and damages including past and future wages and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1981 claims may proceed in federal court against state actors. | McQueen/others rely on §1981 as remedy. | §1983 exclusive remedy for state actors per Jett. | Not resolved at pleading stage; potential summary judgment issue only. |
| Personal involvement of Maurer, Lonergran, O’Connor in FMLA claims. | Allege direct involvement in disciplining and assignment decisions. | Need tying conduct to each defendant. | Second amended complaint sufficiently ties them to FMLA violations. |
| Scope of the charge—whether Title VII/IHRA claims exceed EEOC/IDHR charges. | Charges broadly cover discrimination; claims flow from those acts. | Exhaustion bars claims outside the charges. | Exhaustion rules apply; specific claims beyond charges may be dismissed. |
| Disparate impact claims—whether all plaintiffs may pursue disparate impact under Title VII/IHRA/ICRA. | Piggybacking allowed; McQueen’s charge supports broader theory. | Only McQueen may proceed; others piggy-back rejected; policy must be identified in charge. | Only McQueen may proceed on disparate impact; others limited to charged conduct. |
| Whether Count V (Equal Protection/Due Process/§1981) is sufficiently pleaded. | Multiple bases for relief under 14th Amendment and §1981. | Rule 10(b) separation not required for multiple theories. | Count V sufficiently pleads diverse theories; not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (pleading standards under notice pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1989) (§1983 exclusive remedy for state actors under §1981 claims)
- Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124 (7th Cir. 1989) (notice/conciliation role in EEOC charges)
- Geldon v. South Milwaukee School District, 414 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2005) ( EEOC charge scope must cover all subsequent related claims)
- Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., 440 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2006) (two-step exhaustion analysis for piggybacking)
- Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1992) (notice pleading and pleading theories in complaints)