Aponte v. National Steel Service Ctr.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79 C 315.,79 C 315.
• Citation: 500 F. Supp. 198
• Parties: John D. APONTE, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL STEEL SERVICE CENTER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

500 F. Supp. 198

John D. APONTE, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL STEEL SERVICE CENTER, Defendant.

No. 79 C 315.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

November 5, 1980.

Henry C. Krasnow, Susan Vance, Mandel, Lipton & Stevenson, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

John C. Berghoff, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGeet, Hastings, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., Ralph T. DeStefano, Richard R. Riese, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MORAN, District Judge.

The plaintiff brings this six-count complaint alleging violations of various antidiscrimination statutes, ERISA and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss each of the counts pursuant to FRCP 12(b) or for summary judgment. The parties have entered into a stipulation regarding the ERISA claims and they are no longer contested.

According to his complaint and administrative charges, plaintiff Aponte, a Mexican American, was employed as a "set up man" with defendant National Steel Service Center Inc., a steel processing facility of Evanston, Illinois. His employment began on April 4, 1966 and was continuous until his discharge on December 22, 1978. Aponte was, until December 18, 1978, excused from overtime responsibilities because he attended school, although mandatory overtime was incorporated in the company's collective bargaining agreement on October 25, 1978. When he was advised that overtime would be required after December 18, the plaintiff submitted a medical report to the employers stating that he was unable to work overtime. On December 20, 1978, the plaintiff was injured at work and was taken to the hospital. The plaintiff's physician stated that he was unable to work for two weeks. In a letter dated December 22, 1978, the company stated that it could not retain him unless he worked overtime. The letter made his discharge effective on that date.

The plaintiff submitted his claim to arbitration consistent with the company's collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found that the plaintiff's refusal to work overtime was sufficient cause for dismissal. The arbitrator, however, changed the effective date of discharge from December 22, 1978 to January 24, 1979.

During the course of plaintiff's employment, he filed several charges with the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In March, 1978, the plaintiff filed a charge with FEPC complaining of discriminatory treatment and retaliation for filing earlier charges. The company and plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement on June 5, 1978. On September 6, 1978, the plaintiff filed an EEOC charge alleging harassment and discrimination in failing to promote him. The plaintiff specifically objected to his probation and his alleged constant harassment by his foreman and leadman. These charges were settled in November, 1978. The plaintiff agreed not to pursue a Title VII lawsuit in exchange for the defendant's promise not to penalize him in any "future consideration for wage increases, promotions, transfers, or other employment related matters" for filing the charge. EEOC issued a right to sue letter on plaintiff's allegations that he had been denied a promotion.

After his discharge, plaintiff filed charges with both the EEOC and FEPC alleging that his termination was in retaliation for filing previous charges. On March 23, 1979, EEOC issued a right to sue letter on the charge, finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe the allegations made in the charge were true.

Aponte originally filed this federal court action pro se. Counsel was appointed and the most recent second amended complaint was filed on plaintiff's behalf on June 27, 1979.

Counts I & II

Plaintiff brings Counts I and II under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. commonly known as Title VII. Count I is brought under § 703 of the Act which attempts to remedy discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.¹ Count II is brought under § 704 which provides in part a remedy for retaliatory discharge based upon previous filing of employment discrimination charges.²

To maintain a federal court action a party must have filed a timely charge with the EEOC and then act upon the Commission's notice of the right to sue in federal court. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974).

The defendant challenges this court's subject matter jurisdiction of harassment claims that are included in both counts. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has not gone through the proper administrative procedures regarding these claims and cannot raise them for the first time in this action.

In Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Ins. Co., 538 F.2d 164 (7th Cir.) (en banc) cert. denied 429 U.S. 986, 97 S.Ct. 506, 50 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) the Seventh Circuit defined the standard courts should follow in evaluating whether federal court actions properly arise from the administrative proceedings:

The complaint in the civil action ... may properly encompass any ... discrimination like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and growing out of such allegations. Id. at 167.

Because most claims at the administrative level are filed pro se, courts have been solicitous of Title VII plaintiffs. See e. g. Willis v. Chicago Extruded Metals Co., 375 F.Supp. 362 (N.D.Ill.1974). In Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 92 S.Ct. 616, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972), the Supreme Court observed that "technicalities are particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers initiated the process." See also Garcia v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes Medical Center, 80 F.R.D. 254 (N.D.Ill.1978); Willis v. Chicago Extruded Metals Co., supra.

Using those guidelines, this court turns to the specific claims of plaintiff. Count II alleges retaliatory discharge, harassment in the form of abusive language, threats of personal injury and property damage, unnecessary surveillance and more strenuous work assignments than other employees in similar job classifications. Plaintiff's EEOC charge and right to sue letter specify retaliatory discharge under § 704.

It is undisputed that the retaliatory discharge claims are properly before this court. It is less clear whether the harassment claims belong here. In his pleadings, plaintiff has alleged harassment without outlining how the harassment related to the plaintiff's eventual retaliatory discharge. If the alleged harassing acts were part of a design to force the plaintiff out because of his prior charges with various state and federal agencies, a reasonable relation between the charge and complaint exists. If the harassment stemmed from motives entirely unrelated to plaintiff's previous charges, the relationship is less obvious.

The Seventh Circuit has made it clear that complaints should be liberally construed. Because this court believes that there is a set of facts which can show a reasonable relation between the charge and complaint, it will be upheld. The motion to dismiss Count II is denied.

Count I can only be maintained either because the retaliatory termination charge is broad enough to encompass § 703 claims of harassment or because the November, 1978 settlement agreement was not complied with.

The plaintiff assumes that his alleged harassment stemmed from national origin discrimination in violation of § 703. Once again, he does not plead any relation between these alleged violations and those he brings under § 704. Absent Count II, this court would be reluctant to include these claims, particularly in light of a settlement agreement which was entered into by the parties on at least the abusive language and strenuous work assignment issues. See EEOC v. Bailey Co., 563 F.2d 439 (6th Cir. 1977) cert. denied 435 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 1468, 55 L.Ed.2d 506 (1978). Since the conduct complained of is before the court in Count II, however, a refusal to consider those same matters under Count I would be parsing it too fine. The motion to dismiss Count I is denied.

Count III

The defendant urges that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. That section provides:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses and exaction of every kind and to no other.

It is settled that § 1981 includes discrimination based upon race and alienage. Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'n., 334 U.S. 410, 68 S.Ct. 1138, 92 L.Ed. 1478 (1948). There is considerable debate, however, about whether Latinos come within the coverage of § 1981. The dispute essentially centers upon whether discrimination against Latinos is characterized as racial discrimination or national origin discrimination. Those courts that have held that § 1981 does not encompass the claims of Hispanics have viewed them as ones of national origin. See e. g. Martinez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 78 F.R.D. 125 (E.D.Pa. 1978); Plummer v. Chicago Journeyman Plumbers' Local 130, 452 F.Supp. 1127 (N.D. Ill.1978); Jones v. United Gas Improvement Corp., 68 F.R.D. 1, 15 (E.D.Pa.1975); Gradillas v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 407 F.Supp. 865 (D.Ariz.1975).

The courts which have extended coverage of the statute to Latinos have found a "degree of identity between claims of national origin or ethnic background discrimination and racial discrimination." Garcia v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 80 F.R.D. 254 (N.D.Ill. 1978). See e. g. Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 566 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1977...