Tritsis v. BankFinancial Corporation

Filing 74

MOTION by Defendant BankFinancial Corporation for judgment Rule 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Argionis, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY V. TRITSIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION, and )
BANKFINANCIAL F.S.B.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case Number: 16-cv-2052

DEFENDANT BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION’S RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Defendant

BankFinancial

Corporation

(“BankFinancial

Corporation”

or

“Corporation”) for its Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in its favor and
against Plaintiff Mary V. Tritsis’ (“Plaintiff”), states as follows:
1.

In the various iterations of amended complaints filed in this District Court

action, Plaintiff originally asserted identical allegations of discrimination against two separate
and distinct entities.
2.

One defendant, Corporation, never employed Plaintiff, was mistakenly named

in the original complaint, does not have the requisite number of employees to be subject to
Title VII, and remained as the only defendant in the District Court litigation based solely on
amended allegations relating to a purported “joint employer” theory of liability.
3.

All but one of Plaintiff’s claims against the second defendant, BankFinancial

F.S.B. n/k/a BankFinancial, National Association (“Bank”), which was and still is her actual
employer, were deemed untimely and dismissed with prejudice.
4.

On March 27, 2017, Bank was dismissed from the federal court litigation and

the parties were compelled to arbitrate Plaintiff’s remaining claim against Bank based on an
arbitration provision in Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement.

LEGAL\36981011\1

5.

After this Court compelled arbitration between Bank and Plaintiff, Corporation

moved to stay litigation pending arbitration, arguing that Corporation can only be liable for
the Title VII claims of gender discrimination under a purported “joint employer” theory if
Plaintiff proves that claim against her actual employer Bank.
6.

On July 6, 2017, this Court granted Corporation’s motion for stay.

7.

The JAMS proceeding has been completed and on May 9, 2018 JAMS entered

a Final Arbitration Award in favor of Bank and against Plaintiff.
8.

Bank has filed a motion to confirm the May 9, 2018 JAMS Arbitration Award.

9.

Collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation of issues in a subsequent proceeding

when (1) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to the earlier
proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided on the merits; (3) the resolution
of the particular issue was necessary to the result; and (4) the issues are identical.
10.

Plaintiff was a party to the JAMS earlier proceeding and the issues of whether

her allegations constituted gender discrimination were fully litigated and decided on the
merits by Judge Keys as reflected in his May 9, 2018 ruling.
11.

The resolution of the issue of Bank’s alleged discrimination was necessary to

the result and the identical allegations of discrimination, via a purported “joint employer”
theory, are being asserted by Plaintiff, who participated in the JAMS proceeding, against
Corporation before this Court.
12.

Accordingly, collateral estoppel is applicable and precludes Plaintiff from

attempting to re-litigate the same alleged discriminatory actions before this Court which she
litigated before JAMS.
13.

Moreover, since this Court previously recognized that a finding of liability

against Corporation required a finding of liability against Bank, and since the JAMS
arbitration ruling found no discrimination by Bank, Corporation cannot be liable under a

LEGAL\36981011\1

2

purported “joint employer” theory.
14.

Corporation is therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings, as a matter of

law, relative to the joint employer Title VII claim that was stayed against Corporation
pending the JAMS arbitration.
15.

To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to argue that she should be allowed to

pursue different allegations of discrimination against Corporation that were not ruled upon in
the JAMS Arbitration, Corporation is nevertheless entitled to a judgment on the pleadings
since, where a joint employer relationship is alleged, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each
“joint employer” separately meets the Title VII statutory definition of “employer” before any
Title VII liability may be imposed.
16.

This Court has already ruled that Corporation does not separately meet the

statutory definition of “employer.”
17.

Accordingly, this is yet another reason that Corporation is entitled to judgment

on the pleadings.
Wherefore, for all the reasons stated in this Motion and in the accompanying
Memorandum in Support of this Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
Defendant BankFinancial Corporation respectfully requests that this Court enter an order
granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Defendant BankFinancial Corporation and
against Plaintiff Mary Tritsis and further requests such additional and further relief as this
Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 27, 2018

/s/ James G. Argionis
One of the Attorneys for the Defendant
BankFinancial Corporation

LEGAL\36981011\1

3

Jack J. Carriglio
James G. Argionis
Cozen O’Connor
123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

LEGAL\36981011\1

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James G. Argionis, an attorney, hereby certify that on June 27, 2018, I caused to be
electronically filed a true

and correct copy of

the

foregoing DEFENDANT

BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION’S RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which sent electronic
notification of such filing to all Counsel of Record.

/s/ James G. Argionis
James G. Argionis

LEGAL\36981011\1

5