Edmond v. City of Chi.
| Decision Date | 15 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-cv-04858,17-cv-04858 |
| Parties | DERRICK EDMOND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The nine plaintiffs in this proposed class action are current or former employees of the City of Chicago's Department of Water Management ("the Water Department"). 2d Am. Compl. ["SAC"] ¶ 16, ECF No. 87. Each plaintiff is an African American individual. SAC ¶¶ 17-25. According to the Second Amended Complaint, the City of Chicago ("the City") acknowledged in 2017 through its mayor that "there is a deeply ingrained culture of racial discrimination within the Water Department." SAC ¶ 8.1 Named as defendants are the City and the following individual defendants, all Caucasian: the City's former Water Commissioner, Barrett Murphy ("Murphy"); the Water Department's Chief Operating Engineer, Joseph Lynch ("Lynch"); and three current or former deputy water commissioners, William Bresnahan ("Bresnahan"), John Pope ("Pope"), and Alan Stark ("Stark"). SAC ¶¶ 38-42. The seven-count SAC pleads claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for discrimination and for creating a hostile work environment (Counts I-V); similar violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act of 2003 ("IHRA"), 740 ILCS § 23/1 et seq., ("Count VI"); and an indemnification count againstthe City (Count VI).
Before the court are three motions to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim. Murphy and Bresnahan have filed separate motions, ECF Nos. 91 and 93 respectively. The City, Pope, Stark, and Lynch (collectively "City defendants") also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and to strike the SAC's class allegations. ECF No. 95 at 1.
The pending motions challenge the SAC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and in part under Rule 12(f). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the case.2 See Christensen v. Cty. of Boone, 483 F.3d 454, 457 (7th Cir. 2007). A Rule 12(f) motion allows a court to strike from "a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The Rule 12(f) standard will be elaborated infra in the context of the motion to strike plaintiffs' class action allegations.
Under federal notice pleading standards, "a plaintiff's complaint need only provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, sufficient to provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis." Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
"To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must provide enough factual information to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014)). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts all of the complaint's factualallegations as true, "drawing all permissible inferences in the plaintiffs' favor." Cmty. Bank of Trenton v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 887 F.3d 803, 811 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2016)).
A different, but partially overlapping, group of current or former Water Department employees commenced this action by filing their original complaint in July 2017. ECF No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint for failure to state a claim and to strike its class action allegations, see Mem. Supp. 1, ECF No. 25, but the then-plaintiffs exercised their right to amend the complaint once as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). The filing of plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), ECF No. 32, mooted the motion to dismiss the original complaint. Minute Entry, Nov. 15, 2017, ECF No. 31; Minute Order, Nov. 28, 2017, ECF No. 33 ().
Bresnahan, Murphy, and the city defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the FAC and, as for the City defendants, to strike the FAC's class allegations. ECF Nos. 63, 65, 78. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the FAC less than two weeks later, but they did not attach a proposed amended complaint. ECF NO. 76. The court denied their motion but granted them leave to refile it with a proposed complaint. Minute Entry, Feb. 16, 2018, ECF No. 82.
Plaintiffs supplied the court and opposing counsel with the proposed SAC, and without opposition from defendants, the court granted leave to file it in March 2018. See Minute Entry, Mar. 8, 2018, ECF No. 86. Making no concessions, plaintiffs represented that the amendments to the SAC "address pleading deficiencies Defendants' [sic] claim exist," Pls.' Mot. Leave to File SAC ¶ 9, ECF No. 84. Among other things, plaintiffs dropped certain individual defendantsentirely, modified their class action allegations, and altered Count V to clarify that it is pleaded in the alternative. See id. ¶¶ 9-17 (summarizing amendments). The pending motions to dismiss and strike followed on the heels of the SAC's filing.
With an annual budget of over $900 million and approximately 2,104 employees, the Water Department treats and delivers potable water to homes and businesses in Chicago and 126 surrounding communities. SAC ¶¶ 46-48. The Water Department's senior management includes the Commissioner, the First Deputy Commissioner, two Managing Deputy Commissioners, and five Deputy Commissioners. SAC ¶ 29-31. The mayor appoints the Commissioner with the approval of the City Counsel, SAC ¶ 29; the Deputy Commissioners are also appointed by the mayor, SAC ¶ 32. These positions, as well as superintendent positions, "have historically principally been filled by whites and not African Americans." SAC ¶ 67.
The individual defendants were required to follow city-wide written personnel rules and the City of Chicago Hiring Plan. SAC ¶ 49, 52. The hiring plan's goal is to provide an equal employment opportunity to qualified candidates and base hiring on factors unrelated to race such as the candidate's knowledge, skills, and ability to perform the job. SAC ¶ 52. The personnel rules cover topics such as "recruitment and applications for hiring or promotion, examinations for use in hiring or promotions, promotional lists, transfers, promotions and career progressions, performance evaluations, training and career development, disciplinary action, personnel administration, and personnel records." SAC ¶ 50. Under the rules, the City has established job classifications, duties, and rates of pay. SAC ¶ 51. Finally, for covered Water Department employees, collective bargaining agreements also dictated rules that the individual defendants had to follow. SAC ¶ 49. The city's written personnel rules cover the subjects about whichplaintiffs complain, including hiring, discipline, promotion, work assignments, and the like. SAC ¶ 51.
Plaintiffs summarize their allegations this way: "Defendants have a long-standing and widespread pattern and practice of discriminating against African-Americans in their employment at the Water Department and in particular of denying African-Americans promotions, assigning African-Americans the least amount of overtime, and unfairly meting out unwarranted and excessive discipline to African-Americans." SAC ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners are policy makers, SAC ¶¶ 30, 32, and that all of the aspirations embodied in the city-wide policies just discussed went down the drain in the Water Department. According to the SAC, "[t]he Individual Defendants communicated and knowingly condoned a policy to all of the supervisors within the Water Department that African-Americans were to be, or could with impunity be, treated with disdain, deprived of promotions, given less overtime, and harassed." SAC ¶ 7.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined in the SAC as "all African-Americans who were employed at the Water Department through the date of judgment in this action." SAC ¶ 198 (). Plaintiffs further propose three subclasses: (1) a promotions subclass; (2) a transfer and shift subclass; and (3) an overtime subclass. SAC ¶ 198. Each subclass will consist of all African American Water Department employees who applied for the respective benefit but did not receive it. SAC ¶ 198.
Plaintiffs bring Counts I-IV against the City and the individual defendants in their official capacities. Count I is pled as a "hostile work environment" claim under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and § 1983. SAC at 50. Count II pleads the same theorybut under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 "via § 1983." SAC at 51. Counts III and IV follow the same pattern. Count III asserts a discrimination claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983; Count IV makes the same allegations under § 1981 "via § 1983." SAC at 53, 55. Count V is an alternative claim under § 1981 for employment discrimination brought against the individual defendants in their individual capacities. SAC at 56. Count V arises under the IHRA and names only the City as a defendant. SAC at 58. Finally, Count VI pleads an indemnity claim under Illinois law against the City. SAC at 59 (citing 745 ILCS 10/2-302).
The named plaintiffs work or worked for the Water Department during the noted time periods: Derrick Edmond (1985-2017); Eddie Cooper, Jr., (1994-present); Vicki Hill (1983-2015); Robert T. Laws, Jr., (1988-present); Anton Glenn (1986-present); Veronica Smith (1988-present); Donald Anderson (1994-present); and David...
To continue reading
Request your trial