Terry v. MXD Group, Inc. et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 11/15/2017. This matter is before the court on Defendant MXD Group, Inc.'s (MXD) partial motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the partial motion to dismiss 14 is denied. Mailed notice (ags, )

.ffit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TOM DAVIS TERRY,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

)

v.

MXD GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

No. 17 C 4133

)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMLIEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendant MXD Group, Inc.'s (MXD)
partial motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the partial motion to dismiss
is denied.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Tom Terry (Terry) is an African American who was allegedly
employed by MXD as its General Manager. Terry claims that his superior, Larry
Thomas (Thomas), informed him that MXD would be hiring William Badel (Badel)

who is Caucasian because MXD did not want Terry to be the "face" of the company.

In December 2016, Terry was allegedly demoted to Operations Manager and Badel
was hired as the General Manager. Terry claims that Badel was paid a higher salary

despite the fact that he had less experience than

Terry. Terry also claims that Badel

made various insulting remarks relating to Terry's race. Badel allegedly hired David
Soteo (Soteo) who is Caucasian and allowed Soteo to report directly to Badel even

though he was supposed to report to Terry. Terry allegedly complained about
Soteo's alleged insubordination and complained about other alleged harassment, and
was subsequently informed that he would be discharged from his employment.

Terry includes in his amended complaint a claim alleging discrimination based on
his race in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (TitleYII),42

U.S.C. $ 2000 et seq. (Count I), a Title VII retaliation claim (Count II), and a claim
alleging discrimination based on his race in violation of the Illinois Human Rights

Act (IHRA),775ILCS 5/1-10 | et seq. (Count III). MXD now moves to dismiss the
Title VII discrimination claim to the extent that it is premised on Terry's demotion.

LEGAL STANDARD
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(bX6) (Rule 12(bX6)), a court must "accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint" and make reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(stating that the tenet is "inapplicable
to legal conclusiotrs"); Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750,
753 (7th

Cir.2002). To defeat a Rule l2(bx6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Iqbal,l29 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted)(quoting
in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that
contains factual allegations that are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability .

.

. stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief."

Iqbal,129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

MXD contends that Terry failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in
regard to his Title

VII

race discrimination claim to the extent that

it is based upon his

demotion. A plaintiff seeking to bring a Title VII claim in Illinois must first exhaust
his administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC). Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park,734 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2013). A

plaintiff pursuing a Title VII claim, generally, 'ocannot bring claims in a lawsuit that
were not included in her EEOC charge." Id. (intemal quotations omitted)(quoting
Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497, 500 (7th

Cir. 1994)). A plaintiff

bringing a Title VII claim can pursue claims not specifically referenced in the EEOC
charge

"if they are 'like or reasonably related to the allegations of the IEEOC]

charge and growing out of such allegations." Id. (internal quotations

omitted)(quoting Moore v. Vitol Prods., Inc., 641 F.3d 253,256-57 (7th Cir.
2011))(stating that "[t]o be like or reasonably related, the relevant claim and the
EEOC charge must, at minimum, describe the same conduct and implicate the same

individuals").
Terry was not required to provide a complete factual recitation of all
circumstances relating to his claim in his EEOC charge and Terry did in fact allege

in his EEOC charge that he was discriminated against because of his race. Terry
argues that he discussed his demotion in his EEOC questionnaire (Questionnaire),

which would have placed MXD on notice of such a claim. The court can consider
the Questionnaire based on equitable considerations. In the Questionnaire, Terry
does reference his demotion, indicating

that he was told that someone was going to

help him get his General Manager position back. It could reasonably be expected
that the alleged discrimination relating to his demotion would have grown out of an

investigation of the charges presented in his EEOC charge. The claim in the EEOC
charge is also reasonably related to the claim in this maffer to the extent it relies
upon Terry's demotion. The alleged discrimination that surrounded his demotion

involves the same parties, Thomas and Badel, and alleged pattern of discrimination
that Terry detailed in his EEOC charge. Terry alleged in his EEOC charge that he
was discharged. In the complaint, Terry explains how that discharge allegedly
stemmed from a series of events that began with his demotion, which made the

General Manager position available for Badel. Terry has thus sufficiently exhausted
his administrative remedies in regard to his demotion. Therefore, MXD's partial

motion to dismiss is denied.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis,

MXD's partial motion to dismiss is denied.

Samuel L,er-Yeghlayan
United States District Court Judge

Dated: November 15,2017