Day v. Inland Management Corporation et al

Filing 73

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 10/12/2012: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion to dismiss 53 is denied. Mailed notice(rth, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sharon J. Coleman

CASE NUMBER

11 C 6201

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

10/12/2012

Day vs. Inland Management Corporation, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT
On April 24, 2012 Plaintiff Stephanie Day (“Day” or “Plaintiff”) filed an amended complaint alleging
racial discrimination, gender discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges
violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Count I), Title VII (Counts II, III, and IV), the Illinois Whistle
Blowing Statute (Count V), and breach of contract (Count VI). On July 17, 2012, Defendant Inland SBA
Management Corporation (“Inland” or “Defendant”) moved to dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff’s amended
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the foregoing reasons,
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.
Count VI of Plaintiff’s amended complaint states a claim for breach of contract. Day alleges that her
employment contract was memorialized in an exchange of emails confirming terms orally agreed to in a prior
teleconference. The alleged contract provides that Plaintiff would get a bonus at the end of her second year
which would be calculated by deducting her salary and the salary plus bonuses of anyone else in the
department at that time from the $200,000 department budget. Inland argues that Plaintiff fails to allege a
plausible breach of contract claim because the language of the alleged contract does not guarantee a $50,000
bonus. Defendant contends that in order to allege a plausible breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must allege
(1) that there was money left over in the department’s budget after her salary, the salary of other employees,
and the bonuses of other employees were paid from the $200,000 budget and; (2) that Defendant failed to
11C6201 Day vs. Inland Management Corporation, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
give Day the remaining sum in the form of a second year bonus.
Plaintiff responds that she has pled sufficient facts to state a plausible and non-conclusory breach of
contract claim. Plaintiff argues that accepting the allegations of her complaint as true, she has demonstrated
that there was a written offer of employment which was accepted, that the contract provided for a second year
bonus to be calculated by subtracting her salary, the salary of other employees, and the bonuses of other
employees from the $200,000 budget, and that having calculated her bonus based on the criteria agreed to in
the contract, Plaintiff is owed $50,000 which Inland refused to pay her.
In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). This standard is met
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency not the merits of
the case. Gibson v. Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s
favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Here, Defendant’s argument that Day must explicitly state in her complaint that there was a “balance”
left in her department’s budget is one of semantics and unpersuasive. Plaintiff essentially does allege that
there was a balance left over when she alleges that she calculated what her bonus should be by subtracting
her salary, the salary of other employees, and the bonuses of other employees from the $200,000 budget and
was left with $50,000 which should have been her bonus. The fact that Plaintiff does not expressly state that
the $50,000 was the resulting “balance” is insignificant. The Court finds that it is a reasonable inference to
conclude that the resulting $50,000 after Plaintiff’s calculations constitutes the balance remaining from the
department’s budget and bonus due to Day, pursuant to the criteria provided in the parties’ alleged contract.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for breach of contract.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff’s amended complaint is denied.

11C6201 Day vs. Inland Management Corporation, et al.

Page 2 of 2