Worthington v. JJ Severson Affiliates, Inc., 1:16-cv-08573

Plaintiff Justin T. Worthington, who alleges Native American ancestry, worked for Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC and was promoted to General Manager and Area Manager. Supervisors Alex Salisbury and Harry Therault allegedly made repeated racial/ethnic and other derogatory remarks and publicly humiliated Worthington.
Worthington says the harassment increased after he became General Manager; in summer 2014 he was demoted and then constructively discharged.
He sued alleging race-, color-, and national-origin-based discrimination and hostile work environment claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Defendants moved to dismiss: (1) Title VII claims against individual supervisors Brooke and Todd Severson; and (2) Title VII claims and hostile work environment claims premised on color and national origin for failure to exhaust EEOC administrative remedies.
Worthington filed an EEOC charge checking only “race” and “sex” as bases; he did not check “color” or “national origin,” and his written charge referenced race and sex only. An EEOC interview summary mentioned additional statements but was not sworn or part of the charge form.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether individual supervisors can be sued in their personal capacities under Title VII	Worthington asserted claims against individual defendants (conceded not that they were employers)	Title VII does not authorize suits against individuals who are not employers	Dismissed: Individual defendants cannot be personally liable under Title VII; claims against them dismissed
Whether Worthington exhausted administrative remedies for Title VII claims based on color and national origin	EEOC interview summary contained statements suggestive of color/national-origin discrimination, so those claims should proceed	Worthington’s EEOC charge checked only "race" and "sex"; he did not put Defendants on notice of color or national origin claims, so he failed to exhaust	Dismissed: Title VII color and national-origin claims (including related hostile work environment claims) are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2012) (pleading standard and inference-drawing at motion to dismiss)
Thompson v. Ill. Dep’t of Prof’l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2002) (pleading rules on a motion to dismiss)
E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2007) (EEOC charge requirement and plausibility standard discussion)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (facial plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading requirements and plausibility)
Passananti v. Cook Cty., 689 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012) (Title VII does not permit individual-capacity suits against non-employers)
Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook Cty., 804 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2015) (EEOC charge requirement and its purposes)
Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) ("reasonably related" test for claims outside an EEOC charge)
Cheek v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1994) (scope of EEOC charge)
Kersting v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 250 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir. 2001) (determining whether complaint allegations are reasonably related to EEOC charge)