Henderson v. Marker
| Decision Date | 05 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13 CV 2621 |
| Parties | TROY HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. JASON MARKER d/b/a MARKER AND ASSOCIATES in his individual capacity, LTD COMMODITIES LLC, in their individual capacity, and AS OF YET OTHER UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES in their individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Troy Henderson alleges that Defendants Jason Marker d/b/a Marker and Associates, LTD Commodities LLC, and unknown employees of LTD conspired to deceive him, interfere with and deprive him of his workers' compensation rights, and intentionally inflict emotional distress on him. He further alleges that Defendant LTD misclassified his employment status, discriminated against him on the basis of his race, and retaliated against him after he filed a lawsuit. Defendants LTD [41] and Marker [43] have filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint. For the reasons stated below, the motions are granted and Plaintiff's federal claims (Counts I-II and IV-IX) are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims (Counts III and X-XVIII), which are dismissed without prejudice to being re-filed in state court.
For purposes of the instant motion to dismiss, the Court construes the second1 amended complaint [28] in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor. E.g., McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873, 879 (7th Cir. 2012). In addition, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his second amended complaint liberally and holds it to a less stringent standard than if it had been drafted by a trained lawyer. See, e.g., Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009); Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 687 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court considers "not only the complaint itself, but also documents attached to the complaint, documents that are critical to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial notice," Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 714 F.3d 1017, 1019-20 (7th Cir. 2013), such as Plaintiff's previous federal case, Henderson v. Rauen, Case No. 11-cv-5787 (N.D. Ill.). "To the extent that an exhibit attached to or referenced by the complaint contradicts the complaint's allegations, the exhibit takes precedence." Phillips, 714 F.3d at 1020; see also Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 610-12 (7th Cir. 2013); Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 & n.1 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court also considers additional facts set forth in Plaintiff's briefs, [32]2 and [45], so long as those facts are consistent with the pleadings. Phillips, 714 F.3d at 1020. The facts set forth below are statedas favorably to Plaintiff as permitted by the second amended complaint, its attachments, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), and other materials that may be considered at this stage.
Plaintiff is an African American male. [28] ¶ 5. Defendant LTD Commodities ("LTD"), a catalog distributor, hired him to work as a full-time maintenance mechanic on or about May 7, 2007. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. LTD classified Plaintiff as its employee and memorialized this classification on Plaintiff's W-2 tax form. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff alleges in his briefs that he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and severe depression during his tenure at LTD, and that Defendants knew about these diagnoses. See [32] at 18; [45] at 9-10.
Plaintiff was injured on the job on May 2, 2008. [28] ¶ 10. That same day, he began receiving workers' compensation benefits from LTD. Id. ¶ 11. At some point, Plaintiff asserted claims of racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against LTD. See [28] Ex. K. On August 17, 2009, Plaintiff and LTD entered into a confidential settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiff's discrimination claims. [28] ¶ 12; [28] Ex. K. Plaintiff has attached an August 20, 2009 version of the settlement agreement to his second amended complaint as Exhibit K. Pursuant to that settlement agreement, Plaintiff agreed to waive any and all future claims against LTD, "with the exception of any pending workers' compensation claims." See [28] Ex. K ¶ 13(a). A handwritten provision in the agreement reiterates, "Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the contrary, HENDERSON is not releasing his pending workers' compensation claims." Id. LTD did not admit wrongdoing but agreed to make monetary payments totaling $83,000 to Plaintiff and deem his employment terminated effective August 17, 2009 pursuant to a "reduction in force." See id. Ex. K ¶¶ 1(a), 2. Both Plaintiff and his attorney signed the agreement. See id. Ex. K at 7. Plaintiff now alleges that the agreement "contains ambiguous and contradictory terms" that "affect[ ] the legality of Plaintiff's workers[']compensation claim and the settlement." [32] at 4.
LTD's first payment to Plaintiff was for $40,000. See [28] Ex. K ¶ 1(a). Under the agreement, Plaintiff "underst[oo]d and agree[d] that an[] IRS Form 1099 will be issued to him reflecting the payment that is made." Id. Plaintiff further agreed that "in the event that the payment * * * is construed as an award of taxable income, backpay or wages," he would "promptly reimburse, indemnify, and hold LTD harmless for the full amount of all taxes, all social security contributions and any other taxes or penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service or any state or local taxing authority," and that he "shall have no claim against LTD for failing to issue a form W-2 or the applicable information return, or to withhold federal, state, or local taxes required [sic] payroll deductions." Id.
On or about January 31, 2010, Plaintiff received a Form 1099-Misc from LTD. See [28] ¶ 14; id. Ex. A. The form indicated that he had received $40,000 in "nonemployee compensation," i.e., the settlement payment. [28] Ex. A. Plaintiff alleges that the LTD intentionally "misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor" on the Form 1099-Misc and that he "was misclassified in payment for the confidential settlement." Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff further claims that he was misclassified "while he was receiving workers' compensation benefits." Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff alleges in his brief that he repeatedly informed LTD about the misclassification but that LTD refused to correct it. See [32] at 4-5, 16. Instead, LTD told him to seek legal representation and address the issue in court. See id. at 5.
On August 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against LTD and others, including the lawyers who represented him in connection with his discrimination claims and in negotiating the confidential agreement to settle them. See Henderson v. Rauen, Case No. 11-cv-5787, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2011); see also [28] ¶ 19. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint onSeptember 2, 2011, see Case No. 11-cv-5787, Dkt. No. 9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2011), which he characterizes as "statutorily protected activity." [28] ¶ 18. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that LTD misclassified him as an independent contractor on the Form 1099-Misc documenting his $40,000 settlement payment. See Case No. 11-cv-5787, Dkt. No. 9. He alleged that this misclassification was part of a broader conspiracy among the defendants to discriminate against and harass Plaintiff on the basis of his race. See id. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff attempted to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty, "intentional negligence," conspiracy to violate Title VII, conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, conspiracy to fraudulently conceal, conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1985, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986, and a declaratory judgment nullifying the settlement agreement. See id. The judge assigned to that case sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims for failure to state a claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See id. Dkt. No. 14 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2011); see also [28] ¶ 20. Plaintiff did not appeal this decision. See generally Case No. 11-cv-5787 (N.D. Ill.). It is unclear whether Plaintiff pursued his state law claims in state court.
At some point,3 Plaintiff hired Defendant attorney Jason Marker to represent him in connection with a workers' compensation action against LTD. [28] ¶ 17. Plaintiff alleges that on October 12, 2011, LTD retaliated against him for filing the amended complaint in his recently dismissed federal case by somehow "unlawfully influencing Marker into conspiracy." Id. ¶¶21-22. On October 13, 2011, Marker met with Plaintiff and presented to him an offer from LTD to settle his workers' compensation claims for $140,000. Id. ¶¶ 23-25. Plaintiff rejected the offerbecause Marker had not added to it terms that Plaintiff had requested. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Plaintiff alleges that Marker did not add the terms because "LTD's misclassification interfered." Id. ¶ 28. After Plaintiff declined the offer, Marker said something to the effect of, "Now that the police are involved Plaintiff has no civil or legal rights of any kind." Id. ¶¶ 31-32. Plaintiff does not know why Marker made this statement, id. ¶ 33, and he does not allege that he or Marker had any contact or interaction with law enforcement officials. Marker rebuffed Plaintiff's persistent requests to take the workers' compensation claims to trial. Id. ¶¶ 29-30.
A few days later, on October 17, 2011, Marker e-mailed a settlement release to Daniel Swanson, who represented LTD in connection with Plaintiff's workers' compensation claims and allegedly acted as LTD's agent. Id. ¶¶ 35-38. The e-mail said that the attached release was made "per our agreement," [28] Ex. B, which Plaintiff alleges means that Marker and LTD had "combined for the agreed purpose of accomplishing by concerted action a lawful purpose by unlawful means...
To continue reading
Request your trial