Emerick v. Beacon Hill et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 11/24/2014:Mailed notice(rth, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHELLE EMERICK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
BEACON HILL / LIFESPACE
COMMUNITIES,
Defendant.
Case No. 14-cv-1168
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Michelle Emerick, filed a pro se Complaint on April 21, 2014, alleging employment
discrimination and retaliation against defendants Beacon Hill / Lifespace Communities ( collectively
“Beacon Hill”). Beacon Hill moves to dismiss [15] the Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 1 For the reasons stated herein, the
motion is granted.
Background
Beacon Hill is a not-for-profit retirement community owned and operated by Lifespace
Communities, Inc. Emerick worked at Beacon Hill from September 27, 2010, to February 11, 2013.
According to the Complaint, Emerick alleges that Beacon Hill retaliated against her after she married
a co-worker’s brother and asked Beacon Hill to add him to her health insurance policy. Emerick
alleges that on February 7, 2013, the day after she complained to human resources at Beacon Hill
that she was being charged for having her husband on her insurance, despite him not having
received an insurance card, that Beacon Hill suspended her to investigate complaints about her
1
Emerick did not file a response to Beacon Hill’s motion.
1
work. Beacon Hill terminated Emerick on February 11, 2013, following its investigation into
complaints about Emerick’s hygiene, backrubs, twice refusing to take a patient to the dining room,
entering a resident’s apartment with gloves on, and mishandling patient medication.
Legal Standard
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the allegations. The allegations must contain sufficient
factual material to raise a plausible right to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569 n.14
(2007). Rule 8 does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). On a motion to dismiss, the
Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to Emerick and draw all reasonable
inferences in her favor. Park v. Ind. Univ. Sch. of Dentistry, 692 F.3d 828, 830 (7th Cir. 2012).
Discussion
Beacon Hill moves to dismiss Emerick’s complaint entirely, arguing that Emerick’s claim is
barred by the statute of limitations and that she fails to state a claim under Title VII. A timely claim
for discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII must be brought within 90 days of the
plaintiff having received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); see Dandy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 388 F.3d 263, 270 (7th Cir.
2004). Here, Emerick received her right-to-sue letter on November 25, 2013. Therefore, she had
until February 23, 2014, to file a lawsuit against Beacon Hill. Emerick filed her complaint in this
matter on April 21, 2014. Accordingly, her claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
Even if her complaint were timely, Emerick fails to state a claim for retaliation or
discrimination under Title VII. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating
against any individual because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42
2
USCS § 2000e-2. Taking all of Emerick’s allegations as true, she still fails to allege any violation of
Title VII. The basis for her claim is that Beacon Hill retaliated against her for complaining to human
resources that her husband had not been added to her health insurance policy as she had requested.
At no point does Emerick allege that this purported retaliation or discrimination stemmed from her
membership in a protected class or her participation in a protected activity. See, e.g., Johnson v. Zion
School District No. 6, 2012 WL 6727406, *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2012). Not every wrong, however
deeply felt, is entitled to redress in the federal courts. Here, Emerick fails to adequately plead a claim
for discrimination or retaliation and, even if she did, such a claim is barred by the statute of
limitations. 2
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, this Court grants Beacon Hill’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
[15] and dismisses the Complaint with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 24, 2014
Entered: _____________________________
Sharon Johnson Coleman
United States District Judge
2
Beacon Hill also argues that Emerick’s complaint must be dismissed based on improper service. This Court need
not reach that issue because the Court found the complaint time barred and insufficiently pleaded.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?