Litterly v. State Retirement System of Illinois
Filing
14
ORDER granting 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - The Complaint and Amended Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/29/2012. (CT, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 30 March, 2012 09:29:29 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
YVONNE LITTERLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-3351
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Defendant State Retirement
System of Illinois’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion) (d/e
12). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted because the
Complaint and Amended Complaint fail to state a claim.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a
document which this Court interpreted as a Complaint. See d/e 1. In
this document, Plaintiff states that from August 2009 until August 2010,
she believed she was discriminated against by the State Retirement
System of Illinois. Plaintiff states she was employed by the Illinois
Lottery for more than 20 years and met all the qualifications for receiving
disability benefits as a state employee. According to Plaintiff, after
receiving a check for approximately $2,000, she was “cut off from
receiving any further payments” even though her health issues were
ongoing. Plaintiff also details her medical conditions.
Attached to the Complaint are numerous documents, including the
Charge of Discrimination filed by Plaintiff on June 28, 2010 asserting
that the State Retirement System of Illinois discriminated and retaliated
against Plaintiff on the basis of sex, age, and disability. In the charge,
Plaintiff named the State Retirement System of Illinois as the
respondent. Plaintiff asserted that she began employment with the State
Retirement System of Illinois in January 1986 and that during her
employment, she had been subjected to, among other things,
intimidation and denial of disability benefits. Plaintiff received a Right
to Sue letter on August 11, 2011.
Plaintiff also attached the Recommendation of the Executive
Page 2 of 9
Committee of the State Employees’ Retirement System of Illinois which
recommended that Plaintiff’s appeal be denied. The Recommendation
indicated that Plaintiff was employed by the Department of Revenue and
had applied for disability benefits. The Committee found that Plaintiff
had “not substantiated a disabling condition so as to warrant the
payment of non-occupational disability benefit at any time after
September 28, 2009.”
On September 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a letter which she identified
as an Amended Complaint. See d/e 6. In the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff alleged that while employed by the State of Illinois, “benefits for
disability were wrongfully withheld.” Plaintiff further alleged that the
actions of the State Retirement System of Illinois contributed to her
decision to resign from her employment with the Illinois Lottery.
Plaintiff demanded six million dollars from the State Retirement System
of Illinois, plus court costs.
The State Retirement System of Illinois filed the Motion at issue
herein asserting (1) this Court should enter judgment on the pleadings on
Page 3 of 9
the grounds that Plaintiff did not file her Charge of Discrimination
against her employer and, therefore, has not exhausted her administrative
remedies; and (2) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because Plaintiff has pleaded (a) “no facts which suggest a
violation of federal law against her employer” or (b) facts indicating that
the decision of the State Retirement System of Illinois constituted
discrimination or retaliation against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed a
response to the Motion. Therefore, it is presumed Plaintiff has no
opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 7.1(B)(2).
This Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Therefore, this Court will not address the
State Retirement System of Illinois’ exhaustion argument.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper where a complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must
provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
Page 4 of 9
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). That statement must
be sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and
its basis. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). This means
that (1) “the complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give
the defendant ‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests” and (2) its allegations must plausibly suggest that the
plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a “speculative
level.” E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776
(7th Cir.2007). While detailed factual allegations are not needed, a
“formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Conclusory allegations are “not entitled to
be assumed true.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1951 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544-55). “In ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions, the court must treat all well-pleaded allegations as true
and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” In re
marchFIRST Inc., 589 F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Tamayo,
Page 5 of 9
526 F.3d at 1081).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s Complaint, Amended Complaint, and the documents
attached thereto suggest Plaintiff is bringing a claim against the State
Retirement System of Illinois for violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.), the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). “The ADEA, the ADA, and
Title VII all require as a prerequisite to suit that a plaintiff at one time be
employed by the defendant.” Ratcliffe v. City of Chicago, 2001 WL
649480, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (finding the plaintiff had no cognizable
employment claim against the defendant because the plaintiff was never
employed by the defendant).
Although Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination listed the State
Retirement System of Illinois as the respondent and asserted that
Plaintiff was employed by the respondent, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges
Plaintiff was employed by the Illinois Lottery, her Amended Complaint
Page 6 of 9
alleges she was employed by the State of Illinois, and all the other
attached documents that reference Plaintiff’s employment indicate
Plaintiff was employed by the Illinois Department of Revenue. See, e.g.,
the Recommendation identifying Plaintiff employer as Department of
Revenue, the Medical Consultant Documents identifying Plaintiff’s
employer as the Department of Revenue, and a Request for Leave
document identifying Plaintiff’s employer as the Department of Revenue.
Where the exhibits conflict with the allegations of the complaint,
the exhibits generally control. Massey v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 464
F.3d 642, 645 (7th Cir. 2006). However, the Court must consider the
purpose, source, and reliability of the exhibits when applying this general
rule. Northern Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South
Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 454-55 (7th Cir. 1998).
Here, one of the exhibits–the Charge of Discrimination purportedly
drafted by Plaintiff–contradicts the rest of the exhibits and the allegations
in the Complaint and Amended Complaint. Considering the purpose,
source, and reliability of the exhibits, this Court accepts the allegations in
Page 7 of 9
the Complaint and Amended Complaint that Plaintiff’s employer was
either the Illinois Department of Revenue, the State Lottery and/or the
State of Illinois but not the State Retirement System of Illinois. Because
the pleadings and documents attached thereto indicate that the State
Retirement System of Illinois was not Plaintiff’s employer, and because
Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion, this Court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim under the ADEA, ADA, or Title VII. See, e.g.
Mounts v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., 2009 WL 2778004, at
*5 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“[a] plaintiff states a claim for employment
discrimination when he alleges that an employer took a specific adverse
action against him because of a prohibited animus”). Therefore, the
Complaint and Amended Complaint are dismissed, but without
prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the State Retirement Defendant’s Motion
(d/e 12) is GRANTED. The Complaint and Amended Complaint are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Page 8 of 9
ENTER: March 29, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 9 of 9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?