Padron et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Walmart

Filing 18

MOTION by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to dismiss (MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT) (King, Alan)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ROLAND PADRON, BOBIRT R.MIRANDA
and EUSEBIO R. CALZADA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC. d/b/a WALMART,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-CV-06656
Judge Zagel
Magistrate Judge Soat Brown

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (“Defendant” or “Walmart”), by its attorneys, Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), hereby moves for partial dismissal of
the Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiffs Roland Padron (“Padron”), Bobirt R.
Miranda (“Miranda”) and Eusebio R. Calzada (“Calzada”) (together, “Plaintiffs”). In support of
its motion, Defendant states as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant who worked in the same Walmart

store for varying lengths of time until their terminations from employment in November 2006.
(Compl. ¶¶ 38-40.) In Counts IV through IX of the Complaint, Plaintiffs, who allege to be of
Cuban national origin, bring individual Title VII claims alleging national origin discrimination
and retaliation arising from their terminations and certain other terms and conditions of
employment. Additionally, Plaintiffs bring the following pay discrimination claims on behalf of
themselves and a purported nationwide class of Defendant’s current and former Cuban
“warehouse employees”: (a) a disparate impact claim under Title VII in Count I; (b) a disparate
treatment claim under Title VII in Count II; and (c) a disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 in Count III.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in

several respects, and the following claims should be dismissed: (a) Plaintiffs’ individual and
class claims in Count I should be dismissed in their entirety; (b) Plaintiffs’ individual and class
claims in Count II should be dismissed in their entirety; (c) Plaintiffs’ individual and class claims
in Count III should be dismissed in their entirety; (d) to the extent Counts I, II and/or III are not
dismissed in their entirety, those counts and Counts IV through IX should be dismissed to the
extent they allege violations occurring outside of the relevant limitations periods; and (e) to the
extent Counts I and/or II are not dismissed in their entirety, those counts should be dismissed to
the extent they purport to state a claim of race discrimination, which was not alleged in the
Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges.
3.

In further support of its motion, Defendant has filed together herewith its

Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint
(“Defendant’s Memorandum”).
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons and the additional reasons set forth in
Defendant’s Memorandum, Defendant Walmart respectfully submits that Counts I, II and III of
the Complaint should be dismissed in their entirety. Alternatively, Counts I, II and III should be
dismissed to the extent they allege violations occurring outside of the applicable limitations
periods, and Counts I and II should be dismissed to the extent they purport to state a claim of
race discrimination. Additionally, Counts IV through IX should be dismissed to the extent they
allege violations occurring outside of the applicable limitations period.
Dated: December 30, 2010

2

Respectfully submitted,
WAL-MART STORES, INC.

By: s/ Alan S. King
Alan S. King, Esq. (ARDC #: 06198223)
Mark E. Furlane, Esq (ARDC #: 00897175)
Noreen H. Cull, Esq. (ARDC #: 06229417)
Elizabeth V. Lopez, Esq. (ARDC #: 6293255)
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60606-1698
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail : [e-mail]
E-mail : [e-mail]
E-mail : [e-mail]
Email : [e-mail]
CH01/ 25651301.2

3