Blair v. Department of Human Services

Filing 55

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 5/8/2014: For the reasons stated in the accompanying order, the Court dismisses Counts 1, 2, and the Title VII claim in Count 3 as to IDHS; dismisses Count 3 in its entirety as to McIntosh; and otherwise denies the motion to dismiss. Defendants are directed to answer the remaining claims by no later than May 22, 2014. (mk)

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

DONALD BLAIR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN )
SERVICES and L.K. McINTOSH,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 13 C 2558

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants, the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) and L.K.
McIntosh, a supervisory employee with that agency, have moved to dismiss certain
claims in the amended complaint by Donald Blair, a former IDHS employee. Blair
originally filed a pro se complaint that, in the caption, identified only IDHS as a
defendant. The Court later appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed an
amended complaint on January 2, 2014 that named McIntosh as a defendant both in
the caption and in the body of the complaint.
1.
IDHS moved to dismiss Blair's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on sovereign immunity. Blair
does not oppose dismissal of these claims as to IDHS. For this reason, Counts 1 and 2
are dismissed as to IDHS, and the Title VII claim (but not the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act claim) in Count 3 is likewise dismissed as to IDHS.
2.
McIntosh moved to dismiss Blair's claims under Title VII and the ADEA on
the ground that because he was not Blair's employer, he is not a proper defendant on
those claims. Blair does not oppose dismissal of these claims as to McIntosh. For this
reason, Count 3 (which contains both Title VII and ADEA claims) is dismissed as to
McIntosh.
3.
McIntosh moved to dismiss Blair's section 1981 claim but withdrew that
challenge in his reply.
4.
The only remaining issue concerns McIntosh's request to dismiss Blair's
section 1983 claim against him on the ground that it is time-barred. The parties agree
that the statute of limitations for section 1983 claims in Illinois is two years. Blair was
terminated by IDHS on June 9, 2011. McIntosh takes the position that he was first

named as a defendant in the amended complaint filed in January 2014, well over two
years after Blair's claim accrued.
Blair filed his original pro se complaint on April 5, 2013, using a form for pro se
employment discrimination claims supplied by the Clerk's office. In the caption, he
identified only IDHS as a defendant. In paragraph 3, however, he stated as follows (the
underscored portions are the parts that Blair filled in; the other portions are contained on
the form):
3. The defendant is L.K. McIntosh, State of Illinois, Department of Human
Services, whose street address is 8001 S. Cottage Grove, (city) Chicago
(county) Cook (state) Illinois (ZIP) 60619. (Defendant's telephone number)
(773)-602-4321.
In short, Blair specifically identified McIntosh as a defendant. In addition, in the body of
his pro se complaint, Blair made it clear that he was complaining about allegedly
discriminatory treatment by McIntosh.
Blair paid the filing fee, so he dealt with service of summons on his own. The
summons that Blair filled out and then caused to be served listed the same case caption
(listing only IDHS as a defendant), but it was specifically directed to L.K. McIntosh. See
Dkt. Entry 6.
Most of the parties' argument on the motion to dismiss concerns the relation-back
rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C). Were this the issue, the Court
would decline to dismiss the complaint, because the odds are fairly strong that McIntosh
got actual notice of Blair's original claim and knew or should have known that he was or
should have been named as a defendant. But that is not really the issue. The original
complaint did, in fact, name McIntosh as a defendant. He was not identified in the
caption, but that is not controlling, because he was specifically named in the body of the
complaint. For this reason, the amended complaint unquestionably relates back to the
date of the original filing, pursuant to Rule 15(c)(1)(B). McIntosh's timeliness challenge
therefore fails.
Conclusion
In summary, the Court dismisses Counts 1, 2, and the Title VII claim in Count 3
as to IDHS; dismisses Count 3 in its entirety as to McIntosh; and otherwise denies the
motion to dismiss. Defendants are directed to answer the remaining claims by no later
than May 22, 2014.

Date: May 8, 2014