Syed M. Alam v. Miller Brewing Comp
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4003
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Alam sued Miller Brewing and MillerCoors under Title VII for retaliation after a prior discrimination suit against Miller Brewing.
- The district court dismissed for failure to plausibly allege MillerCoors as Alam's employer and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies against Miller Brewing.
- Alam and MillerCoors pursued a business opportunity where Alam, via his company, would develop a software prototype for MillerCoors; MillerCoors stated it would not engage after learning of Alam’s prior lawsuit.
- Letters from MillerCoors’ counsel referenced the Settlement Agreement’s no-reemployment clause and indicated MillerCoors would not work with Alam or his company.
- Alam filed an EEOC charge in December 2009 and received a right-to-sue notice in March 2010, prompting a complaint against Miller Brewing and MillerCoors alleging retaliation and promissory estoppel.
- After amended pleadings and multiple dismissals, Alam appealed the district court’s decisions, but the court ultimately affirmed the dismissal and relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alam properly exhausted against Miller Brewing | Alam sufficiently alleged Eggleston exception notice to Miller Brewing. | Alam failed to name Miller Brewing in the EEOC charge and did not plead sufficient notice/conciliation facts for Eggleston. | Dismissal affirmed; Eggleston not satisfied. |
| Whether MillerCoors is Alam's employer under Title VII | Affiliate/agency theories render MillerCoors liable for Miller Brewing’s retaliation. | Alam was an independent contractor with MillerCoors and not an employee or applicant; no employer-employee relation. | Dismissal affirmed; affiliate/agency theories not established. |
| Whether Alam’s §1981 claim survives | §1981 claim is viable for race discrimination independent of Title VII pleading. | §1981 claim was not raised below and is waived on appeal. | Waived; affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (notice and conciliation requirements for unnamed defendants)
- Olsen v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., 267 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2001) (parent corporation not named in EEOC charge requires notice and conciliation)
- Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124 (7th Cir. 1989) (application of Eggleston exception to unnamed defendants)
- Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers’ Local Union No. 130, 657 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1981) (Eggleston exception allows unnamed employer to be sued if adequate notice and conciliation opportunity exist)
- Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1991) (dismissing claims where condition precedent not alleged)
- Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (agency liability when agent exercises control over employment access)
- Spirit v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 691 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1982) (agency liability where agent significantly affects employment opportunities)
- Thomas v. Nealey, 114 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (S.D. Ga. 2000) (district court discussion of agency-like liability factors (not official reporter, included for context))