Lanton v. City Of Chicago
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 2/13/2017:Mailed notice(kef, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DENISE LANTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16 C 2351
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge:
On August 17, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant City of
Chicago’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Denise Lanton’s First Amended Complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which she filed on September 9, 2016. After Defendant filed the present
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Counts I and III-V of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint based on the Court’s original and supplemental
jurisdiction on November 3, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(c). Plaintiff also filed a
response to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss. The Court then directed Defendant to
address Plaintiff’s allegations in the Third Amended Complaint in its reply brief and allowed
Plaintiff to file a sur-reply.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the following claims
brought pursuant to the Court’s original jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint: (1) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim (Count I); (2)
1
The Court presumes familiarity with its August 17, 2016 Memorandum, Opinion and Order.
[R. 26.]
Plaintiff’s failure to promote/race discrimination claim brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983
(Count III); (3) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim based on race (Count
IV); and (4) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim based on gender (Count
V). The Court grants the City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and, in its discretion, declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim based on the Illinois Constitution as
alleged in Count II. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court therefore dismisses this lawsuit in its
entirety.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the
viability of a complaint by arguing that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014). Under
Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule
8(a)(2) must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed. 2d 929 (2007)
(citation omitted). Under the federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff’s “factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Put differently, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct.
1397, 1949, 172 L.Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In determining the
sufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard, courts must “accept all well-pleaded
facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor.” Roberts v. City of Chicago,
817 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2016).
2
BACKGROUND
In her Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she has been the City’s employee
since 1988 starting as a paralegal in the City’s Law Department. (R. 34, Third Am. Compl. ¶ 7.)
In 1994, Plaintiff was promoted to Assistant to the Commissioner in the Department of Streets
and Sanitation (hereinafter “Streets & Sanitation”). (Id. ¶ 8.) In 1999, Plaintiff was promoted to
the position of Administrative Service Officer II – a position she still holds. (Id. ¶ 9.) In her role
as Administrative Service Officer II, Plaintiff works on labor relations matters, hiring practices
disciplinary issues, grievances, arbitrations, and policy development within Streets & Sanitation.
(Id. ¶ 11.)
On February 17, 2014, the City’s Department of Human Resources posted a position for
Labor Relations Supervisor in Streets & Sanitation, which would have been a promotion for
Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 13.) Plaintiff applied for the position, and on May 8, 2014, the City
interviewed her in accordance with the required hiring procedures. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff asserts
that the interview process for these types of positions in the City is very structured. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Specifically, the City screens the candidates and then the Inspector General’s Office ranks the
candidates numerically. (Id. ¶ 16.) After her interview, the Streets & Sanitation’s Personnel
Division informed Plaintiff that the result of the hiring panel’s consensus ranked her as the first
alternate for the position of Labor Relations Supervisor – above all other candidates except the
individual whom they selected for the position. (Id. ¶ 17.) On May 19, 2014, the Director of
Personnel Maria Contreras called Plaintiff to notify her that the first choice candidate for the
Labor Relations Supervisor position had declined the City’s job offer. (Id. ¶ 18.) Because
Plaintiff was the first alternate choice, Contreras offered Plaintiff the job, and Plaintiff accepted
3
that same day. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that she was scheduled to start as the Labor Relations
Supervisor on June 1, 2014. (Id. ¶ 19.)
On May 21, 2014, Noelle Brennan, the federal court-appointed monitor of the Shakman
Consent Decree, filed her “Corrected May 21, 2014 Report on Substantial Compliance.” (Id. ¶
20.) Brennan was responsible for monitoring how the City complied with the Shakman Decree,
which prevented the City from basing its hiring decisions on an applicant’s political affiliation.2
(Id.) In her May 2014 report, Brennan recommended that the federal court no longer needed to
actively monitor the City’s hiring practices. (Id. ¶ 21.) Brennan, however, recommended that
approximately ten employees needed “further investigation.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff was one of the
individuals whom Brennan had identified as needing “further investigation.” (Id. ¶ 23.)
Plaintiff alleges that on May 22, 2014, the Commissioner of the Department of Human
Resources spoke with Brennan regarding Plaintiff’s hiring to the position of Labor Relations
Supervisor. (Id. ¶ 29.) Brennan gave her opinion that the City should not hire Plaintiff in this
role because the job was connected to the hiring process. (Id.) Nonetheless, on May 27, 2014,
Plaintiff met with Contreras to complete the hiring paperwork. (Id. ¶ 30.) At this meeting, the
Commissioner of Streets & Sanitation Charles Williams told Plaintiff that there was a problem
with Human Resources, but that he would work on it. (Id.) Commissioner Williams directed
Contreras to proceed with finalizing Plaintiff’s hiring paperwork. (Id.)
On June 2, 2014, Brennan amended her report regarding Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 32.) More,
specifically, Brennan renewed her request to “exclude [Plaintiff] from the hiring process in its
“Pursuant to the Shakman Accord, the City agreed to create and implement a hiring plan to
effectuate the goal of eradicating political patronage.” Bonnstetter v. City of Chicago, 811 F.3d
969, 971 (7th Cir. 2016).
2
4
entirety and to exclude her from positions wherein she would exercise significant control and
discretion over other similar employment actions.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that in this
memorandum, Brennan also requested that the City and Inspector General review Plaintiff’s
interview transcript and another individual’s transcript to “determine whether further
investigation is warranted.” (Id. ¶ 33.) According to Plaintiff, the City never conducted an
investigation into her alleged misconduct after Brennan’s recommendation for “further
investigation,” but rather notified Brennan that it had disciplined Plaintiff by barring her from
participating in any aspect of the hiring process. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff alleges that the City never
gave her an opportunity to defend herself against Brennan’s allegations of wrongdoing – such as
notice of the allegations, a hearing, or an opportunity to be heard – despite her written requests to
the Streets & Sanitation’s Commissioner. (Id.)
Also in June 2014, the City told Plaintiff that she could not take the position as the Labor
Relations Supervisor. (Id. ¶ 36.) On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to Commissioner
Williams requesting the documents underlying the decision to revoke her job offer and an
opportunity to respond to Brennan’s allegations. (Id. ¶ 37.) In that letter, Plaintiff explained that
Brennan based her report on innuendoes of participants in a past hiring fraud scheme. (Id. ¶ 38.)
As discussed, the City nevertheless revoked Plaintiff’s promotion without conducting any further
investigations. (Id. ¶ 39.) Thereafter, throughout the remainder of 2014 and 2015, Plaintiff
asked her immediate supervisor and others if they had received Brennan’s allegations of
misconduct against her. (Id. ¶ 40.)
On January 7, 2016, the Chicago Fire Department (“CFD”) contacted Plaintiff via email
asking her to interview for a Labor Relations Supervisor position with the CFD. (Id. ¶ 46.) This
position was the same position Plaintiff could not take due to Brennan’s recommendation in June
5
2014. (Id.) The next day, Plaintiff accepted the CFD’s request to interview. (Id. ¶ 47.) On
January 12, 2016, Joann McNeil, Supervisor of Personnel Services for the CFD, told Plaintiff
that the CFD had to cancel her interview at the behest of the City’s Human Resources
Department. (Id. ¶ 48.) In response, Plaintiff emailed McNeil asking her why the CFD
cancelled her interview, after which McNeil explained that she did not know why and gave
Plaintiff the contact information of Deputy Commissioner Christina Batorski from the City’s
Human Resources Department. (Id. ¶ 49.) Batorski responded to Plaintiff that she could not
participate in the hiring process because of Brennan’s finding, namely, that Plaintiff was not
eligible for the CFD position and that Plaintiff’s inclusion on the referral list was in error. (Id. ¶¶
50, 51.)
On March 11, 2016, Plaintiff learned that the City had promoted an individual named
Christopher Suave to a Deputy Commissioner position with Streets & Sanitation in February
2016. (Id. ¶ 52.) Plaintiff alleges that she is an African-American female who is 59-years-old
and that Suave is Caucasian male who is younger. (Id. ¶¶ 53, 54.) Also, Plaintiff alleges, upon
information and belief, that Suave was recommended for and received harsher discipline from
the Federal Monitor than she did. (Id. ¶ 55.) Plaintiff maintains that the City suspended Suave
for a period of time due to the Federal Monitor’s findings and that despite this discipline,
Suave’s ability to be promoted to Deputy Commissioner was not hindered. (Id. ¶¶ 56, 57.) To
date, Plaintiff remains barred from promotion due to the Monitor’s recommendations. (Id. ¶ 50.)
ANALYSIS
I.
Due Process Claim – Count I
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against the City in Count I is based
on the City’s enforcement of the Shakman Decree, specifically, the Shakman Monitor’s May 21,
6
2014 Report on Substantial Compliance. It is undisputed that the City’s liability cannot be based
on respondeat superior, and thus Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98
S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), governs Plaintiff’s claims against the City. To recover under
Monell, Plaintiff must show that (1) she suffered a deprivation of a constitutional right; (2) as a
result of an express municipal policy, widespread custom, or deliberate act of a decision-maker
with final policy-making authority, that was (3) the cause of her constitutional injury. See
Daniel v. Cook Cnty., 833 F.3d 728, 734 (7th Cir. 2016); Dixon v. Cnty. of Cook, 819 F.3d 343,
348 (7th Cir. 2016). “An unconstitutional policy can include both implicit policies as well as a
gap in expressed policies,” and must be the “moving force” behind the plaintiff’s constitutional
deprivation. Daniel, 833 F.3d at 734.
As the Court explained in its August 2016 ruling, Plaintiff’s allegations did not state a
plausible Monell claim against the City under the federal pleading standards because – although
she gave sufficient details concerning how City employees treated her in the context of the
Shakman Decree – she failed to allege any other instances of a widespread practice or policy.
See Daniel, 833 F.3d at 734 (plaintiff “must show more than the deficiencies specific to his own
experience”); Thomas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293, 303 (7th Cir. 2010) (Monell
liability requires conduct in “more than one instance”). In other words, “[w]hen a plaintiff
chooses to challenge a municipality’s unconstitutional policy by establishing a widespread
practice, proof of isolated acts of misconduct will not suffice.” Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327
F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2003); see, e.g., Holloway v. Delaware Cnty. Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063,
1071 (7th Cir. 2012). The Court thus turns to Plaintiff’s amended pleadings to determine
whether her Monell allegations are plausible under this precedent.
7
In her Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the City never gave her an
opportunity to defend herself against the Shakman Monitor’s allegations of wrongdoing – such
as notice of the allegations, a hearing, or an opportunity to be heard – despite her numerous
requests. Plaintiff specifically alleges that “[u]pon information, belief, and [her] personal
experience, the City has a widespread practice of depriving employees identified as needing
‘further investigation’ by the Monitor or other Monitor-related discipline of their rights under the
United States and Illinois Constitutions, inter alia, not providing any opportunity for the
disciplined.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff further alleges that “[u]pon information and
belief, the City did not perform any ‘further investigation’ of [her] or any of the other employees
recommended for further investigation” and that “these employees were disciplined without any
further investigation.” (Id. ¶¶ 26, 27.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the City’s policy was
enforced by the City’s Department of Human Resources against her and other employees. (Id. ¶
28.)
In response to Plaintiff’s new allegations, the City takes issue with Plaintiff’s use of the
phrase “upon information and belief” arguing that this demonstrates that Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently allege her Monell claim based on the City’s enforcement of the Shakman Decree.
Although a plaintiff’s ability to state allegations based on “information and belief” is restricted in
the context of fraud allegations pursuant to Rule 9(b), under Rule 8(a), “[w]here pleadings
concern matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants, conclusory pleading on
‘information and belief’ should be liberally viewed.” Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 914 (7th Cir.
2005) (citation omitted); see, e.g., Huon v. Denton, 841 F.3d 733, 743 (7th Cir. 2016). Thus, the
City’s better argument is that Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and reflect a boilerplate
recitation of Monell’s requirements. See Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d 736, 738 (7th Cir.
8
2016) (“While a plaintiff need not plead ‘detailed factual allegations’ to survive a motion to
dismiss, she still must provide more than mere ‘labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action’ for her complaint to be considered adequate under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8.”) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Viewing Plaintiff’s allegations as true and all reasonable inferences in her favor – as the
Court is required to do at this procedural posture – she has not provided enough factual detail to
support her Monell claim based on the City’s practice of enforcing the Shakman Decree. In
particular, Plaintiff’s theory of the case is that despite her repeated requests for “further review”
after the Shakman Monitor’s May 2014 findings, the City did not perform any further
investigation into the allegations. As to the employees that the Shakman Monitor listed in her
report, Plaintiff fails to allege that any of these individuals requested additional review or any
further investigation. Despite her allegations that she is “barred from promotion within her field
because of the Federal Monitor’s recommendations,” Plaintiff fails to point to at least one other
employee who was similarly barred. Also, as Plaintiff alleges, the Shakman Monitor amended
her report in relation to Plaintiff requesting the City to “exclude [Plaintiff] from the hiring
process in its entirety and to exclude her from positions wherein she would exercise significant
control and discretion over other similar employment actions.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 32.)
Plaintiff, however, does not allege that other individuals who were listed in the Shakman
Monitor’s May 2014 report were also subject to any such amended report, which included the
Shakman Monitor’s directive to review transcripts underlying her finding of misconduct.
After excising the legal conclusions from Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court is left with
very little, if any, factual support of a widespread custom or practice. See McCauley v. City of
Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011). As such, the Court cannot draw a reasonable
9
inference that the City has a widespread custom or practice causing Plaintiff’s (and others)
constitutional deprivations, but instead can only infer a random, isolated incident related to
Plaintiff. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In other words, Plaintiff’s “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Because the Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to amend her Monell allegations to provide
more factual detail, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process claim as alleged in Count I of the Third Amended Complaint with
prejudice.
II.
Race Discrimination and Equal Protection Claims – Counts III, IV, and V
Plaintiff’s Monell allegations in relation to her race discrimination/failure to promote
claim and Equal Protection claims fare no better. Plaintiff’s allegations of the City’s practice or
policy regarding her race discrimination claim consists of one sentence, namely, “[u]pon
information and belief, the City had a widespread practice of depriving African American
employees recommended for ‘further investigation’ by the Monitor or other Monitor-related
discipline of promotional opportunities afford to Caucasian employees also recommended for
‘further investigation’ or other discipline by the Monitor.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 94.) Plaintiff’s
Equal Protection claim based on race states the exact same language as her race discrimination
claim directly above. (Id. ¶ 103.) Although Plaintiff points to a white individual who received
discipline based on the Monitor’s findings, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to supply any details
regarding other African-American employees who are part of her discrimination claim or Equal
Protection claim based on race. Indeed, in her legal memoranda in opposition to the City’s
motion to dismiss, Plaintiff makes only a cursory and unsubstantiated argument supporting these
two claims. See Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is not
10
th[e] court’s responsibility to research and construct the parties’ arguments, and conclusory
analysis will be construed as waiver.”) (citation omitted). The Court therefore grants the City’s
motion to dismiss Counts III and IV for lack of sufficient detail regarding the City’s liability
under Monell. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief” is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.”).
Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations supporting her Equal Protection claim based on gender
are insufficient under the federal pleading standards. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (a plaintiff’s
“factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”). In her
Third Amended Complaint, she simply alleges that “[u]pon information and belief, the City had
a widespread practice of depriving female employees recommended for ‘further investigation’ by
the Monitor or other Monitor-related discipline of promotional opportunities afforded to male
employees also recommended for ‘further investigation’ or other discipline by the Monitor.”
(Third Am. Compl. ¶ 108.) Again, Plaintiff fails to point to any other female employees, but
merely cut and pasted her Monell allegations without giving any details in relation to any
incidents other than her own. See Daniel, 833 F.3d at 734 (plaintiff “must show more than the
deficiencies specific to his own experience”). As discussed, in her legal memoranda, Plaintiff
fails to develop her arguments explaining how she sufficiently alleged this claim under Iqbal and
Twombly. See M.G. Skinner & Assocs. Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Norman–Spencer Agency, Inc., 845
F.3d 313, 321 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Perfunctory and undeveloped arguments are waived, as are
arguments unsupported by legal authority.”). Plaintiff’s reliance on Ragland v. Dart, No. 15 C
173, 2016 WL 537965, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2016), does not save the day because, in that
matter, the district court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations of the alleged policy or practice
11
were too vague, broad, and lacking in sufficient detail to put defendants on notice of the claim –
as is the case here. Accordingly, the Court grants the City’s motion to dismiss Count V of the
Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.
III.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Plaintiff’s remaining claim in this lawsuit is based on the Illinois Constitution in Count II.
Because the Court is dismissing, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s claims over which the Court has
original jurisdiction, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over this remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As the Seventh Circuit teaches,
“[a] district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims arising from the same case or controversy as the federal claims where … ‘the district
court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Doe v. Vill. of Arlington
Heights, 782 F.3d 911, 920 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); see also Burritt v.
Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). Although the decision to relinquish supplemental
jurisdiction is within the district court’s broad discretion, “[w]hen all federal claims in a suit in
federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal
jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims.” RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc.,
672 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2012).
Under this well-settled precedent, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim and dismisses Count II without
prejudice. See, e.g., Bell v. City of Country Club Hills, 841 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2016).
12
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss with
prejudice and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim as
alleged in Count II.
Date: February 13, 2017
ENTERED
______________________________
AMY J. ST. EVE
United States District Court Judge
13
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?