Chestnut v. Chicago Public Schools

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 11/26/2024. Mailed notice (ec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER CHESNUT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 23 CV 4230
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
November 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher Chesnut brings this six-count lawsuit against Defendant
Chicago Public Schools (“CPS”) 1 alleging national origin and reprisal discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”),
the Illinois Civil Rights Act, 740 ILCS 23/5 (“ICRA”), and the Civil Rights Act of 1886,
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). Before the court is CPS’s motion to dismiss the
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the
following reasons, the motion is granted as to Counts III and IV with prejudice but
denied as to Counts I, II, V, and VI:
Background
For purposes of ruling on CPS’s motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all
well-pleaded facts in the amended complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in

The proper name for Defendant is the Board of Education of the City of Chicago.
However, for the sake of consistency, the court refers to the Board in this opinion as
“CPS,” because Chesnut names the “Chicago Public Schools” as Defendant in his
amended complaint. (See R. 21, Amend. Compl.)
1

Chesnut’s favor. See Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963, 966 (7th
Cir. 2016). Chesnut is of Lebanese national origin, who CPS hired in February 2011
as a substitute teacher. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 12, 15.) Later that same year,
CPS assigned Chesnut to temporarily serve as a Spanish teacher at Taft High School
(“Taft”), but eventually assigned him to teach at Taft on a full-time basis. (Id. ¶¶ 7,
12.)

In the fall of 2019, Chesnut transferred to Taft’s Freshman Academy

(“Academy”) as a Spanish teacher. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 14, 17.) Chesnut alleges that he suffered
national origin and reprisal discrimination while teaching at the Academy. (Id. ¶¶ 23.)
More specifically, Chesnut says his coworkers at the Academy excluded him
from chaperoning study abroad trips and other Foreign Language Department
functions. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) He also alleges that on the first day of the 2019 fall
semester, Lisa Wagner, a special education teacher at the Academy, laughed at him
and declined his request to sit next to her at a presentation. (Id. ¶ 19.) Wagner then
took photos—he does not say of what—and sent them to a Facebook group chat
entitled, “Chat without Chris.” (Id.)
Following this incident, Chesnut spoke with his former Department Chair,
Kerstan Crowe, who drafted and submitted a written complaint on his behalf (“2019
Internal Complaint”) to the new Department Chair, Nuvia Alanis, about Chesnut’s
situation at the Academy. (Id. ¶ 20.) Alanis then forwarded this complaint to Taft
administrators, who in turn referred it to the CPS Equal Opportunity Compliance
Office (“EOCO”). (Id.)

2

When Wagner approached Chesnut about the 2019 Internal Complaint,
Chesnut told her that he felt he was being excluded from group activities by her and
other teachers. (Id. ¶ 21.) Wagner allegedly responded, “[t]o tell you the truth, since
9/11 I’ve carried a bullet-proof plate in my purse.” (Id.) Chesnut says that Wagner’s
comment referred to his Middle Eastern background and implied that she viewed him
as a “terrorist.” (Id. ¶ 22.) In February 2020 EOCO determined that the 2019
Internal Complaint did not involve a protected class issue but recommended that Taft
administrators address the complaint, nonetheless. (Id.)
Thereafter, Chesnut says that CPS and his coworkers retaliated against him
in various ways for filing the 2019 Internal Complaint. More specifically, Chesnut
alleges that he stayed home on sick leave from January 11 through January 14, 2022,
while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, but CPS retracted his sick leave status
without explanation and, as a result, Chesnut did not receive sick pay for this absence
until he filed a grievance with the Chicago Teacher’s Union (“Union”). (Id. ¶ 24.)
Chesnut next alleges that CPS violated its collective bargaining agreement with the
Union (“CBA”) when he returned from his sick leave on January 18, 2022, by
assigning him to substitute teach at 8:00 p.m. the following evening. (Id. ¶ 25.)
Chesnut fulfilled the request to substitute teach without additional pay, but CPS
accused him of insubordination for challenging the improper assignment. (Id. ¶¶ 3,
26.) In response, Chesnut contacted Dr. Laura Lemone, CPS’s Network Chief, to
schedule a meeting to address what he considers to have been retaliatory behavior.

3

(Id. ¶ 27.) However, on January 28, 2022, and before Chesnut could meet with
Dr. Lemone, CPS suspended him indefinitely with pay. (Id. ¶ 28.)
Chesnut also alleges that coworkers lodged two retaliatory complaints against
him. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 29.) First, Wagner complained to CPS on January 28, 2022, the day
CPS suspended him, that Chesnut verbally threatened an assistant principal during
the previous school year and demonstrated hostile behavior toward staff members
and students, and that another teacher referred to Chesnut as a “school shooter.” (Id.
¶ 29.) The amended complaint does not indicate what if any bearing Wagner’s
complaint had on his suspension that began that same day. Second, Wagner, or
another CPS employee, filed a false police report against him the day after her
internal complaint based on the same allegations. (Id. ¶ 32.)
Chesnut remained on paid suspension for 15 months while CPS investigated
Wagner’s complaint, the police report, and the alleged insubordination concerning
the substitute teaching assignment. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 35.) During that time, Chesnut
reported the alleged retaliatory conduct to the EOCO, filed multiple union grievances,
and attempted to file a CPS Law Department ethics complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 39-41.) CPS
eventually lifted his suspension in April 2023, but Chesnut alleges that he could not
return to the Academy because of the “besmirching of his reputation and hostile
environment.” (Id. ¶¶ 35, 38, 42.) Instead, in settling one of his union grievances,
Chesnut agreed to return to the unassigned teacher pool, resulting in a loss of his
tenure status at the Academy. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) And because CPS failed to reassign

4

Chesnut to another permanent, full-time position, his employment with CPS ended
in April 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.)
Analysis
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the complaint,
not its merits. Gibson v. City of Chi., 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). The
complaint must assert a plausible claim on its face and provide fair notice of that
claim’s basis to the defendant. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);
Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728-29 (7th Cir. 2014). A claim is
plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Here, CPS moves to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, arguing
that: (1) portions of Chesnut’s Title VII claims (Counts I and II) are time barred; (2)
portions of Chesnut’s Title VII claims are outside the scope of his Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge of discrimination; (3) Chesnut fails to
allege an adverse employment action to support his Title VII discrimination claim
(Count I); (4) he does not plead the required elements for his retaliation claim (Count
II); (5) he cannot bring a Section 1981 claim against CPS as a state actor (Counts III
and IV); and (6) his ICRA claims (Counts V and VI) fail for the same reasons as his
Title VII claims. (See R. 30, Def.’s Mot.) The court addresses each argument in turn.
A.

Timeliness

5

CPS argues that any alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts from 2019 are
time-barred. (Id. at 4.) Before bringing a Title VII action, a plaintiff must file an
EEOC administrative charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment
practice. Chatman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 5 F.4th 738, 744 (7th Cir. 2021).
Discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts that fall outside that 300-day period are
considered untimely. Id. In this case, Chesnut filed his EEOC charge on August 10,
2022. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶ 9.) Thus, any discrete discriminatory or retaliatory
conduct for which Chesnut seeks to recover must have occurred on or after October
14, 2021, to be actionable.
Chesnut relies on eight alleged adverse employment action to support his Title
VII discrimination and retaliation claims (Counts I and II): (1) subjecting him to a
hostile work environment; (2) canceling his sick leave; (3) assigning him to substitute
teach without adequate notice; (4) removing him from his teaching position; (5) filing
a false police report against him; (6) failing to promptly investigate Wagner’s false
claims against him; (7) eliminating his tenure status; and (8) failing to assign him to
another permanent teaching position. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 49, 55.) Except for
the hostile work environment charge, these alleged discrete adverse employment
actions occurred after January 2022.

As such, the alleged incidents of alleged

discrimination enumerated above are not time barred.
As for his hostile work environment claim, Chesnut refers to “continued
retaliation,” “[a] continuation of . . . discriminatory and retaliatory behavior,”
“continued invocation of discriminatory stereotypes,” and “[a] hostile environment

6

that [Chesnut] faced from both co-workers and administration,” (R. 21, Amend.
Compl. ¶¶ 27, 37, 42.) CPS argues that Chesnut improperly attempts to amend his
complaint to include a “new theory of liability” in his response, (R. 38, Def.’s Reply at
2), but the allegations in the original complaint show otherwise, (R. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 12,
13; R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 37, 42, 49, 55.) And while CPS is correct that
Chesnut cannot evade the time limitations imposed by Title VII, hostile work
environment claims are distinct from claims of discrete discriminatory acts in that
they rely on repetitive or continuing acts. Adams, 742 F.3d at 730 (citing Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 111-14 (2002)). As such, “a hostile-workenvironment charge is timely so long as ‘any act falls within the statutory time
period.’” Id. (citing Morgan, 536 U.S. at 111-14 (emphasis in original)). Beyond that,
while discrete acts occurring outside the statutory time period cannot form the basis
for liability, such acts are allowed as “support for a timely claim.” West v. OrthoMcNeil Pharm. Corp., 405 F.3d 578, 581 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Davis v. Con-Way
Transp. Cent. Express, Inc., 368 F.3d 776, 786 n.4 (7th Cir. 2004)); Morgan, 536 U.S.
at 113 (finding that Title VII does not “bar an employee from using the prior acts as
background evidence in support of a timely claim”). Thus, CPS’s motion is denied to
the extent Chesnut relies on events before October 14, 2021, to support a hostile work
environment claim that continues thereafter or serve as background for evidence to
support his Title VII claims more broadly.

7

B.

Charge Scope
CPS next argues that Chesnut’s amended complaint alleges new conduct not

described in his EEOC charge, including: (1) the retraction of his sick leave; (2) the
improper substitute teaching assignment; (3) the false police report; (4) the removal
of his tenure status; and (5) the failure to rehire him. (R. 30, Def.’s Mot. at 5.)
Generally, a plaintiff may not recover for Title VII claims not included in an EEOC
charge. See Bilal v. Rotec Indus., 326 Fed. Appx. 949, 953 (7th Cir. 2009); Peters v.
Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 307 F.3d 535, 550 (7th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted). However, claims not explicitly mentioned in an EEOC charge may be
permitted in federal court if they are “like or reasonably related” to the allegations in
the EEOC charge and can reasonably expect to grow out of an EEOC investigation.
Harper, 45 F.3d at 147-48 (citing Rush v. McDonald’s Corp., 966 F.2d 1104, 1110 (7th
Cir. 1992)).

Indeed, because plaintiffs usually draft EEOC charges without the

benefit of an attorney, courts must define their scope liberally, and a plaintiff need
not include every fact, individually or in combination, that forms the basis of his
federal claims. Huri v. Off. of the Chief Judge of the Cir. Ct. of Cook Cnty., 804 F.3d
826, 831 (7th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
Furthermore, neither the EEOC rules governing the construction of charges
nor notice pleading standards require a detailed elaboration of every event
underlying a plaintiff’s claim. Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d
632, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (“[The plaintiff] set forth a terse explanation of the March
2000 meeting, which was all he was required to do.” (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a)-(b)

8

(“An EEOC charge should state a “clear and concise statement of the facts, including
pertinent dates” but is valid if it is “sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to
describe generally the action or practices complained of.”))); Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d
437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002) (“All that need be specified [in a plaintiff’s complaint] is the
bare minimum facts necessary to put the defendant on notice of the claim so that he
can file an answer.”).
Here, Chesnut included in his EEOC charge that he was “subjected to
harassment based on [his] national origin” and that he experienced “retaliation for
engaging in protected activity.” (R. 21, Amend. Compl. Ex. 1.) Specifically, Chesnut
alleges that he suffered a denial of benefits, discipline, and temporary reassignment
after complaining to CPS on numerous occasions. (Id.) Construing the charge and
the amended complaint liberally and drawing all inferences in his favor, Chesnut’s
EEOC charge reasonably put CPS on notice of his grievances by generally describing
the alleged unlawful employment acts or practices—specifically, the allegations of
discrimination and retaliation based on his national origin. See Huri, 804 F.3d at 832
(finding EEOC charge citing “harassment” was reasonably related to Title VII hostile
work environment claim). Chesnut was not required to include anything beyond
these general descriptions in his EEOC charge. Accordingly, his Title VII claims fall
within the scope of his EEOC charge, and CPS’s motion to dismiss on this basis is
denied.

9

C.

Adverse Employment Action
CPS asserts that Chesnut fails to plead an adverse employment action to

maintain a viable Title VII discrimination claim. (R. 30, Def.’s Mot. at 5-6.) Chesnut
identifies the same eight alleged adverse employment actions discussed above.
(R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶ 49.) To survive a motion to dismiss, Chesnut need only
“allege enough facts to allow for a plausible inference that [an] adverse action suffered
was connected to [his] protected characteristics.” Kaminski v. Elite Staffing, Inc., 23
F.4th 774, 777 (7th Cir. 2022) (emphasis in original). Recently, the United States
Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346, 355 (2024), clarified
that a plaintiff alleging discrimination need not show that an employer’s action was
“serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to
the employee must exceed a heightened bar.” Instead, a plaintiff need only allege
some disadvantageous harm “respecting an identifiable term or condition of
employment,” which leaves the plaintiff “worse off” but not “significantly so.” Id. at
354-59; see also Thomas v. JBS Green Bay, Inc., No. 24-1404, 2024 WL 4719251, at
*1 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2024) (“Decisions requiring allegations of ‘significant’ or ‘material’
injury did not survive Muldrow.”). Such harms include:
(1) diminishing an employee’s compensation, fringe benefits, or other
financial terms of employment, including termination; (2) reducing
long-term career prospects by preventing him from using the skills in
which he is trained and experienced, so that the skills are likely to
atrophy and his career is likely to be stunted; and (3) changing the
conditions in which an employee works in a way that subjects him to a
humiliating, degrading, unsafe, unhealthful, or otherwise significantly
negative alteration in his workplace environment.

10

Alamo v. Bliss, 864 F.3d 541, 552 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted).
Decisions concerning hiring, failing to promote, and reassignment with different
responsibilities also impact terms and conditions of employment and may be
actionable. Bell v. EPA, 232 F.3d 546, 555 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Burlington Indus.
v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998)). And post-Muldrow, the Seventh Circuit made
clear that deferred training, denial of a preferred vacation schedule, and a transfer
to a different shift may also constitute adverse employment actions to support a Title
VII discrimination claim. Thomas, 2024 WL 4719251, at *1.
Here, drawing all reasonable inferences in Chesnut’s favor, he pleads several
plausible adverse employment actions for purposes of his Title VII discrimination
claim, including: (1) the removal from his permanent teaching position; (2) the
reassignment to the unassigned teacher pool; (3) the failure to reassign him to a
permanent teaching position; (4) the submission of a false police report; and (5) the
failure to promptly investigate Wagner’s false claims against him. Indeed, CPS took
over 15 months to investigate the claims Wagner made against Chesnut, during
which time he says he was paid but still suffered financial harm, including the loss
of the opportunity to earn tuition credit in exchange for mentoring a student teacher.
(R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 37-38); see also Lewis v. City of Chi., 496 F.3d 645, 654 (7th
Cir. 2007) (“An employer’s actions which deprived the employee of compensation
which he otherwise would have earned clearly constitute adverse employment action
for purposes of Title VII.” (internal quotations and alterations omitted)). Further,
Chesnut alleges that the fact of the police report, allegations of misconduct,

11

subsequent investigations, and “hostile environment” resulted in significant damage
to his reputation and career prospects. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 37-42); see also Tart
v. Ill. Power Co., 366 F.3d 461, 475 (7th Cir. 2004) (explaining that adverse
employment actions include “reduc[ing] the employee’s career prospects,” or
“objectively creating a hardship” for the employee).
Additionally, without conducting a fact-intensive review of the circumstances
surrounding the provisions agreed to when Chesnut settled one of his union
grievances, his allegations of transfer to the unassigned teacher pool and loss of
tenure status would no doubt qualify as adverse employment actions. To be sure,
even though Chesnut accepted the offer to return to the unassigned teacher pool, that
agreement was born out of the alleged “hostile environment” and significant
reputational damage he suffered after a forced and prolonged suspension. It follows
that the subsequent failure to reassign Chesnut from the unassigned teacher pool to
another permanent teaching position is also actionable. See Johnson v. Bd. of Educ.
of Chi., 796 Fed. Appx. 313, 315 (7th Cir. 2020) (“A failure to hire can, of course,
constitute an adverse employment action.” (citations omitted)).
Further, while CPS argues that Chesnut’s alleged last-minute assignment to
substitute teach did not give rise to an actionable adverse employment action, the
court disagrees. Indeed, the amended complaint specifically states that Chesnut was
denied additional pay. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶ 3.) As discussed, under Muldrow, a
plaintiff need only allege some disadvantageous harm “respecting an identifiable
term or condition of employment,” which leaves the plaintiff “worse off” but not

12

“significantly so.” 601 U.S. at 359. Chesnut has met that standard here. However,
Chesnut cannot cite the retraction of his sick leave, because the amended complaint
indicates that he eventually recovered his sick pay and endured no other actionable
harm. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶ 24.); see also Muldrow, 601 U.S. at 359 (to be
actionable, employer act must leave plaintiff “worse off”).
D.

Retaliation Claim
CPS asks the court to dismiss Chesnut’s retaliation claim as a matter of law

for failure to plead the required elements. (R. 30, Def.’s Mot. at 7-10.) To state a Title
VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege that he “engaged in statutorily protected
activity” and suffered an adverse action “as a result of that activity.” Alamo, 864 F.3d
at 555 (citing Huri, 804 F.3d at 833). A protected activity is “some step in opposition
to a form of discrimination that the statute prohibits.” Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin
Joint Sch. Dist., 860 F.3d 494, 501 (7th Cir. 2017). CPS contends that Chesnut does
not allege he engaged in statutorily protected activity because he failed to connect his
2019 Internal Complaint with his national origin. (R. 30, Def.’s Mot. at 7.) However,
Chesnut alleges that each of his EOCO complaints, complaint to the CPS Law
Department, and union grievances constitute protected activity to support his
retaliation claim, because he complained of discriminatory treatment through all of
them. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶ 54.) Further, the amended complaint details several
comments and occurrences upon which it can be inferred that those complaints were
based on his national origin, including his co-workers’ likening him to a “terrorist,”
and referring to him as “potentially violent,” “a school shooter,” and “unstable” based

13

on his Middle Eastern background. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22, 29, 33, 38.) This is sufficient to
plausibly connect Chesnut’s complaints to his national origin and proceed with
discovery at this stage. See Gaines v. K-Five Constr. Corp., 742 F.3d 256, 268 (7th
Cir. 2014) (“[A]n employee can engage in statutorily protected activity by complaining
about discrimination even if the challenged conduct does not actually constitute
discrimination.” (citations omitted)).
CPS also complains that Chesnut failed to allege an adverse action to support
his retaliation claim. But again, the court disagrees. In the retaliation context, the
employer’s conduct must be “materially adverse,” meaning that “it would dissuade a
reasonable employee from engaging in the protected activity,” Williams v. Bd. of
Educ. of City of Chi., 982 F.3d 495, 509 (7th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted), and
“produce[ ] an injury or harm,” Lewis v. Wilkie, 909 F.3d 858, 868 (7th Cir. 2018)
(quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006)).
For purposes of his retaliation claim, Chesnut asserts the same now-familiar
employer actions identified above and in connection with his discrimination claim.
(R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 49, 55.) Drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor as
this court must, the court concludes that the same alleged CPS actions it found
supportive of Chesnut’s discrimination claim also would dissuade a reasonable
employee from complaining about discrimination and otherwise satisfy this
retaliation standard.
Finally, CPS argues that Chesnut cannot establish the requisite causal
connection between his 2019 Internal Complaint and any adverse acts in 2022.

14

(R. 30, Def.’s Mot. at 10.)

However, Chesnut is not required to prove causal

connection at the motion to dismiss stage. Leuvano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d
1014, 1029 (7th Cir. 2013). Given the liberal pleading standard, the court finds that
Chesnut sufficiently alleges a plausible retaliation claim.
E.

Section 1981 Claims
Chesnut initially also sought relief for discrimination and retaliation under

Section 1981. (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 58-68.) However, he retracted those claims
after CPS pointed out in its motion that Section 1981 provides a remedy for violations
committed by private actors only. (R. 30, Def.’s Mot. at 11); Campbell v. Forest
Preserve Dist., 752 F.3d 665, 667 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that “an injured party must
resort to § 1983 to obtain relief for violations committed by state actors” (citations
omitted)). Consequently, Chesnut now seeks leave to amend his complaint to include
a claim against CPS under Section 1983 instead. (R. 35, Pl.’s Resp. at 11-12.)
Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that after a party
has amended its complaint once as a matter of course, the party may again amend its
pleading “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and such
leave should be “freely” granted “when justice so requires,” a court “may refuse to
entertain a proposed amendment” when, as here, “the new pleading would not survive
a motion to dismiss.” Gandhi v. Sitara Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 721 F.3d 865, 869 (7th Cir.
2013). To be sure, a plaintiff can establish municipal liability under Section 1983
only by showing: (1) an express policy that, when enforced, causes a constitutional
deprivation; (2) a widespread practice that is so permanent and well settled as to

15

constitute a “custom or usage”; or (3) an allegation that the constitutional injury was
caused by a person with final policymaking authority. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs.
of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Additionally, the plaintiff in a Section
1983 case must demonstrate that the municipality was the “moving force” behind the
constitutional injury alleged. Bd. of the Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404
(1997). Even if the court construes the operative complaint under Section 1983,
Chesnut cannot meet these rigorous standards. He alleges that Wagner, a colleague
at the Academy, engaged in discrimination, which CPS investigated. Wagner is not
an individual with final policymaking authority and respondeat superior liability is
not permissible under Section 1983. Bohanon v. City of Indianapolis, 46 F.4th 669,
675 (7th Cir. 2022) (“[A] municipality is not vicariously liable for the torts of its
employees or agents.” (emphasis in original)).

Chesnut also does not allege a

constitutional deprivation as a result of an express CPS policy or widespread practice.
Therefore, Chesnut’s Section 1981 claims are dismissed and his request for leave to
amend to construe them under Section 1983 is denied as futile.
F.

ICRA Claims
CPS asks this court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the ICRA

claims that duplicate his flawed Title VII claims. (R. 30, Def.’s Mot. at 11; R. 38,
Def.’s Reply at 13.) Courts may dismiss claims as duplicative where “the parties,
claims, facts, and requested relief are substantially the same.” Bresnahan v. City of
Chi., No. 18 CV 1974, 2018 WL 4829597, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2018) (citations
omitted). And if federal claims drop out of a case, leaving only state-law claims, a

16

district court has broad discretion to decide whether to relinquish supplemental
jurisdiction over the state-law claims. RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., 672 F.3d
476, 478 (7th Cir. 2012).
However, as discussed above, the court does not find the Title VII claims fatally
flawed at this stage. Nor will the court dismiss the ICRA claims as duplicative of the
surviving federal claims. This court joins others in this district that have found ICRA
claims need not be dismissed as duplicative of Title VII claims because the two
theories offer different damages caps and adhere to distinct statutes of limitations.
Bresnahan, 2018 WL 4829597, at *5 (“Title VII damages are capped at $300,000,
while damages under the [ICRA] are not.”); see Howard v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Off.,
No. 17 CV 8146, 2022 WL 1404833, at *17 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2022) (holding that overlap
with Title VII claim does not require dismissal of an ICRA claim (citations omitted)).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, CPS’s motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts III
and IV with prejudice and denied as to Counts I, II, V, and VI.
ENTER:
____________________________________
Young B. Kim
United States Magistrate Judge

17