Lawler v. Peoria School District No 150

Filing 16

OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Defendant Board of Education of Peoria School District No. 150's Renewed Motion For a More Definite Statement 12 is DENIED. Defendant is directed to respond to the Amended Complaint by February 28, 2013. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 12 February, 2013 02:12:56 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, PEORIA DIVISION
EYMARDE LAWLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PEORIA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 150, )
An Illinois Local Governmental Entity, )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 12-cv-1299

OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Board of Education
of Peoria School District No. 150’s (School District) Renewed Motion For a
More Definite Statement (d/e 12) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below,
the Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Eymarde Lawler alleges she formerly worked as a teacher for
the School District. She alleges that she is disabled due to depression and
posttraumatic stress disorder. She alleges she requested a transfer as a
reasonable accommodation of her disability. She alleges that the School
District discriminated against her by refusing to give her the requested
reasonable accommodation and, ultimately, by firing her. She further

Page 1 of 5

alleges that the School District also committed these acts in order to
retaliate against her for exercising her rights. See Amended Complaint
(d/e 11) (Complaint), ¶¶ 6-19, 21-26.
Lawler asserts her claims under the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C.
§ 791 et seq. The rights and remedies for employment discrimination
under the Rehabilitation Act are substantially similar to those available
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq. Both
prohibit employment discrimination based on a person’s disability; both
require the claimant to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge
of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
securing a right to sue letter; and both subject damage claims to the same
statutory caps. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, 794a; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 2000e-5,
and 12117; Teal v. Potter, 559 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2009). The
Rehabilitation Act, however, applies only to certain entities, including
entities that receive federal funding like the School District. 29 U.S.C.
§ 794. Lawler has elected to proceed under the Rehabilitation Act.
The School District moves for a more definite statement under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The School District complains that
Lawler recited numerous unnecessary and confusing statutory sections in
the Complaint. The School District complains that Lawler “lumps together”
Page 2 of 5

her allegations that she was both disabled and regarded as disabled. The
School District complains that Lawler alleges a violation of the students’
rights without explaining the connection to her claim. Lastly, the School
District complains that Lawler combined all of her theories of recovery into
a single count. Motion, ¶¶ 4-7.
Motions for more definite statement are disfavored. Such motions
are granted only when the complaint is so vague that a party cannot
respond to it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); Harper v. City of Murphysboro, Ill.,
2008 WL 2782837, at *1 (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2008); Moore v. Fidelity Financial
Services, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 557, 559-60 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Lawler’s complaint
is not so vague. The extensive statutory quotations may be unnecessary,
but they are not vague. Federal notice pleading also allows a plaintiff to
allege multiple theories in the same count. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b);
Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1992)
(“Although it is common to draft complaints with multiple counts, each of
which specifies a single statue or legal rule, nothing in the Rules of Civil
Procedure requires this.”). The School District can respond to the
allegations and statutory recitations in the Complaint with a motion to
dismiss or an answer.

Page 3 of 5

Paragraph 27 is the least clear part of the Complaint. Paragraph 27
is set off by itself under a separate heading:
B.

Employment of Lawler in a Position for Which
her Disability Disqualified Her Deprived Her
Disabled Students of the Educational
Opportunities Required by the Rehabilitation
Act

27. Lawler’s training and disability of which she
informed District 150 on September 22, 2011 rendered her
unable to teach the disabled students to provide them with the
education required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Complaint ¶ 27 (emphasis in the original). The Court agrees with the
School District that this paragraph appears to assert a claim on behalf of
the students rather than Lawler. Lawler does not allege the basis for her
standing to bring a claim on behalf of the students and does not seek any
remedies for the students. The School District, however, can still respond
even to this paragraph by a motion to dismiss or an answer.
The Court, in its discretion, determines that this case will proceed
more expeditiously if the School District responds to the Complaint with
either a motion to dismiss or an answer. Directing Lawler to replead or file
a more definite statement will only delay matters.
WHEREFORE Defendant Board of Education of Peoria School
District No. 150’s Renewed Motion For a More Definite Statement (d/e 12)

Page 4 of 5

is DENIED. Defendant is directed to respond to the Amended Complaint
by February 28, 2013.
ENTER:

February 12, 2013

s/ Byron G. Cudmore
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 5 of 5