909 F. Supp. 2d 1001
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Plaintiff Robert Smith worked as a butcher for Rosebud Farmstand from Nov 2003 to June 2008.
- Plaintiff alleges coworkers subjected him to sexual harassment and used racial/sexual slurs; management allegedly ignored or participated.
- Plaintiff was suspended for nine days for missing work, despite a prior off-request; hours were reduced from 34 to 30.
- Charge of Discrimination filed Jan 7, 2008 with IDHR and EEOC alleging sex harassment and race discrimination through Jan 6, 2008.
- Plaintiff filed suit Dec 23, 2011 alleging multiple Title VII claims, Illinois Gender Violence Act claim, and §1981 claim; EEOC notice of conciliation failure followed Sept 26, 2011.
- Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss; some claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of EEOC charge for racial harassment | Smith's racial harassment grew from sexual harassment | Harassment and race claims not within charge scope | Racial harassment outside charge; dismissed |
| Scope of EEOC charge for retaliation and constructive discharge | Retaliation arose post-charge, thus should be allowed | Retaliation/constructive discharge require exhaustion | Retaliation allowed; constructive discharge dismissed for lack of exhaustion |
| Title VII claims against Mendoza and Castaneda | Sued as individuals under Title VII (not just §1981) | Title VII claims against individuals improper | Title VII claims against Mendoza and Castaneda dismissed as to individuals; moot to extent only §1981 remains |
| Illinois Gender Violence Act claim | Defendants engaged in gender-related violence or aided it | Insufficient basis for Rosebud liability; lack of personal involvement shown | Rule viable; claims survive against some defendants, subject to further proof |
| §1981 claim viability | §1981 applies to at-will employees and contracts; race discrimination in terms/conditions | §1981 not applicable to this factual scenario | §1981 claim viable; at-will relationship within §1981 scope established |
Key Cases Cited
- Rush v. McDonald’s Corp., 966 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir.1992) (scope of EEOC charge and related exhaustion principles guidance)
- Kersting v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 250 F.3d 1110 (7th Cir.2001) (scope of charge relatedness and exhaustion standard)
- Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Svcs., Inc., 336 F.3d 520 (7th Cir.2003) (reasonably related to EEOC charge; broad interpretation favored)
- Herron v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 388 F.3d 293 (7th Cir.2004) (constructive discharge exhaustion concerns when charge predates resignation)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard to plead plausible claims)
- E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.2007) (exhaustion and pleading requirements in discrimination cases)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004) (§1981 protections and contracting rights clarified by 1991 amendments)