Doyle et al v. The City of Chicago et al

Filing 120

Memorandum Opinion and order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 3/26/2014:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

PATRICK DOYLE, DANIEL HOULIHAN,
JOHN NOLAN, ROBERT OLSON,
MICHAEL PADALINO, JOHN PIGOTT,
EUSEBIO RAZO, VERONICA
RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL ROMAN,
RICHARD SOTO, and CAROL
WEINGART,
Case No. 12 C 6377

Plaintiffs,

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, BRIAN
THOMPSON, RAHM EMANUEL, TERRY
HILLARD, SARAH PANG, MICHAEL
FAULMAN, GARRY McCARTHY, JAMES
JACKSON, BEATRICE CUELLO,
EUGENE WILLIAMS, and DEBRA
KIRBY,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts II
and III of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint.

For the reasons

stated herein, the Motion is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

This employment discrimination action arises out the 2011
Chicago mayoral transition after Rahm Emanuel (“Emanuel”) was
elected.

The factual background that follows is drawn from the

allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”).

Plaintiffs are Caucasian and Hispanic Chicago police officers
who had reached the rank of “security specialist,” meaning that
they were assigned to provide security to the Mayor of Chicago and
other

dignitaries

in

the

City.

Compared

to

regular

police

officers, security specialists receive increased benefits and pay.
After Mayor Emanuel was sworn in, Plaintiffs were demoted and
replaced by African-Americans who had political ties to Emanuel.
Some of the Plaintiffs faced slightly different circumstances –
some were demoted, others were reassigned – but those differences
are not relevant for the purposes of this Motion.
On May 1, 2013, this Court ruled on a previous Motion to
dismiss brought by Defendants Brian Thompson, Terry Hillard, and
the City of Chicago.

The Court held that Plaintiffs’ allegations

stated a claim for violation of the Shakman decree (Count I),
violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights secured by 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (Count II), racial discrimination in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1981 (Count III), and racial discrimination in violation
of Title VII (Count IV).

Plaintiffs’ newest Complaint added Mayor

Rahm Emanuel, Garry McCarthy, Sarah Pang, Michael Faulman, James
Jackson, Beatrice Cuello, Eugene Williams, and Debra Kirby (“the
Moving Defendants”) as named Defendants for Counts II and III. The
Complaint alleges that these Defendants “personally participated in
the

process”

replacements.

of

demoting

Plaintiffs

Compl. ¶¶ 107-16.

- 2 -

and

selecting

their

The Complaint alleges further that Defendants Jackson, Cuello,
Williams, and Kirby were high-ranking CPD supervisors: Jackson was
the First Deputy, Cuello was the Assistant Superintendent of
Administration, Williams was the Chief of Patrol, and Kirby was the
Deputy

Superintendent.

Defendants

improperly

According
considered

to

the

political

Complaint,
factors

these

when

they

participated personally in the process of demoting Plaintiffs and
choosing replacement security specialists.
As

alleged

in

the

Complaint,

Mayor

Emanuel

participated

personally in the process of demoting Plaintiffs and choosing
replacement
campaign.

security

specialists

who

had

connections

to

his

Defendants Pang and Faulman were advisors to Mayor

Emanuel who considered political factors when they participated
personally
Defendant

in

the

McCarthy

process
was

of

the

demoting
acting

the

Doyle

Superintendent

Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department.

Plaintiffs.
and

then

He participated

personally in the process of demoting the Doyle Plaintiffs and
choosing replacements with connections to the Emanuel campaign.
McCarthy also issued Personnel Order No. 2011-128, which demoted
some of the Plaintiffs from their Security Specialist positions.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the
claim showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief, sufficient to
provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its

- 3 -

basis.

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

The complaint must “plead[] factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Ashcroft v.

The factual allegations in a

complaint must “raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.”

Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555-56.
III.

ANALYSIS

With both Count II and Count III, Plaintiffs seek to hold
Defendants

liable

involvement

in

for

the

discrimination

Plaintiffs’

based

demotion

on

from

Defendants’
the

security

specialist position. Previously, the Court denied a similar motion
as to Defendants Hillard and Thompson, holding that Plaintiffs’
allegations were sufficient to allege personal involvement in the
deprivation of their rights.

ECF No. 64 at 13-18.

In the pending

Motion, the Moving Defendants do not challenge that holding or
contest that Plaintiffs have pled their claims adequately as to
Thompson and Hillard. Rather, the Moving Defendants argue that the
Complaint

fails

deprivations.

to

connect

their

conduct

to

the

alleged

Because the arguments as to Counts II and III are

identical, the Court considers them together.
The allegations against the Moving Defendants are very similar
to those against Thompson and Hillard.
Plaintiffs

are

Caucasian

or

The Complaint alleges that

Hispanic

- 4 -

and

lacked

political

affiliation

with

Mayor

Emanuel,

while

African-Americans with ties to Emanuel.
they

were

connections

demoted
to

because

the

new

of

their

Mayor,

and

their

replacements

are

Plaintiffs allege that

race

and

that the

their

named

lack

of

Defendants

participated personally in the adverse employment action with
knowledge of these racial and political factors.

It is plausible

that some or all of Defendants participated in various ways:

for

example, it is conceivable that the Mayor had some input over which
officers would form his personal security detail, and Pang and
Faulman, as advisors, could have helped the Mayor reach that
decision or decide whether and how to demote Plaintiffs.

These

allegations raise the right to relief above the speculative level.
Plaintiffs have not alleged what specific actions were taken
by each individual Defendant, but they do not need to.

First, it

is important to bear in mind that federal notice pleading standards
are more lenient for discrimination claims than they are for more
complex claims, such as those based on antitrust law or RICO
statutes.
2008).

Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir.
Second,

the

Seventh

Circuit has

explained

that

“the

complaint need not state the respects in which the defendant”
brought about the alleged harm.

Id. at 1084-85.

Rather, “the

complaint merely needs to give the defendant sufficient notice to
enable him to begin to investigate and prepare a defense.”
1085.

Id. at

Accordingly, Plaintiffs need not allege the particulars of

- 5 -

each Defendant’s involvement.

This Complaint gives the individual

Defendants more than enough information for them to investigate the
facts and defend the case.
Moreover, it is unreasonable to expect Plaintiffs to know, at
this point, the nature or extent of each Defendant’s involvement in
the adverse employment action.

A plaintiff’s inability to know

every factual detail supporting his case does not diminish his
right to relief, and “requiring the plaintiff to plead those
unknown
plaintiff

details

before

discovery

the opportunity

to

would

prove

its

improperly
claim.”

deny

E.E.O.C.

the
v.

Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 780 (7th Cir. 2007).
At this stage, and as ordered previously as to Defendants
Hillard and Thompson, these allegations are sufficient to put
Defendants on notice of potentially viable claims against them.
Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
the Fourth Amended Complaint [ECF No. 98] is denied.

The Motion to

Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 91] is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Date:3/26/2014
- 6 -