Zurawski v. Chicago Transit Authority

Filing 15

WRITTEN Opinion; entered by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 7/2/2013:Defendants motion to dismiss 11 is denied. (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

13 C 2464

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

7/2/2013

Zurawski vs. Chicago Transit Authority

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendant’s motion to dismiss [11] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
Background
Plaintiff Peter Zurawski (“Zurawski”) alleges that the Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”) terminated his
employment and failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12117, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 et seq., (“ADEA”). The
CTA moves to dismiss both Zurawski’s ADA and ADEA claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Zurawski opted to respond to the CTA’s motion orally in open court instead of in
writing. The CTA replied orally as well. For the following reasons, the CTA’s motion is denied in its
entirety.
Discussion
1. ADEA Claim
A complaint need only include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This statement need “only provide the defendant with fair notice of what
claim is being alleged and the grounds upon which it rests.” Balsamo v. One Source, N. Reg’l Commuter
R.R. Corp., No. 04 C 6172, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6241, at *19-20 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2005). In this case, the
CTA moves to dismiss Zurawski’s ADEA claim for failure to adequately plead certain elements necessary to
establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. However, to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case need not allege facts corresponding to each
element of a prima facie case of age discrimination. See Braun v. CDW LLC, No. 12 C 7037, 2013 U.S. Dist.
13C2464 Zurawski vs. Chicago Transit Authority

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
LEXIS 51748, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2013). Here, Zurawski alleges that he was over forty years of age,
he was performing the essential functions of his job, he was wrongfully terminated, and younger employees
or applicants were selected for open positions which he was qualified to perform. (Compl. at ¶¶ 3, 5, 8, 12).
These allegations are sufficient to provide the CTA with fair notice of what claim is being alleged and the
grounds upon which it rests.
2. ADA Claim
The CTA moves to dismiss Zurawski’s ADA claim for failure to adequately allege that he is qualified to
perform the essential functions of his job. Once again, Zurawski need only provide a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief. In this case, Zurawski need not list every essential
function of his job. Zurawski adequately lists a few essential functions in his complaint (Compl. at ¶ 5)
which are sufficient to put the CTA on notice of what claim is being alleged and the grounds upon which it
rests. The CTA offers no support for its proposition that Zurawski must list all essential functions of his job
in order to state a claim under the ADA.
Conclusion
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.

13C2464 Zurawski vs. Chicago Transit Authority

Page 2 of 2