Hudson v. Foxx
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-cv-08243,18-cv-08243 |
| Parties | BRANDON HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY M. FOXX, Cook County State's Attorney in Her Official and Individual Capacity, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Brandon Hudson is a former Assistant State's Attorney ("ASA") with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office ("CCSAO"). Hudson alleges that while he was working at the CCSAO, his supervisors and his coworkers subjected him to constant harassment and bullying because he is an African-American man. Based on the mistreatment Hudson claims he endured at the CCSAO, he has brought an eight-count First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), setting forth claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; and for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). (Dkt. No. 37.) The FAC names as Defendants the CCSAO, Cook County State's Attorney Kimberly M. Foxx, in her official and individual capacities, and Cook County ("Entity Defendants"), along with Jennifer Coleman,1 Jennifer Ballard-Croft, Joan Pernecke, Emily Cole, and Mary Joly Stein, all named in both their official and individual capacities ("Individual Defendants"). Now, Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants have each filed motions to dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. Nos. 49, 69.) For the reasons that follow, the motions are granted.
For the purposes of the motions to dismiss, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the FAC as true and views those facts in the light most favorable to Hudson as the non-moving party. Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007).
Hudson is an African-American man who began working as an ASA with the CCSAO on June 29, 2015. (FAC ¶¶ 1, 14-15.) Over the course of his tenure at the CCSAO, beginning shortly after his employment, Hudson claims that he experienced numerous incidents of harassment and other discriminatory conduct at the hands of his coworkers. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 69.) First, on August 25, 2015, a white female ASA compared Hudson an African-American male murder suspect who, during a live television broadcast, murdered two of his white journalist colleagues. (Id. ¶ 19.) The next day, that same coworker accused Hudson of violating the State's Attorney's Employee Handbook, an allegation that Hudson's supervisors later determined to be unfounded. (Id. ¶ 20.) That same month, a different white ASA filed an internal complaint alleging that Hudson was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. (Id. ¶ 35.) However, after an investigation, the complaint was determined to be baseless. (Id.)
Beginning around June 2016, Hudson's coworkers repeatedly invaded his personal space by logging into his voicemail and deleting messages and sneaking into his office to move around his belongings. (Id. ¶ 26.) In September 2016, another white ASA filed an internal complaint alleging that Hudson was a "hostile employee." (Id. ¶ 21.) When Hudson asked his supervisor, Defendant Joly Stein, to investigate the matter, she refused and instead transferred Hudson to a different courtroom. (Id. ¶ 22.) Following his reassignment, Hudson continued to experience harassment from his coworkers, who made fun of Hudson because of his size and told him that he would be able to beat up a coworker in a fight. (Id. ¶ 23.) On November 29, 2016, a week beforehe was set to try one of his cases, Joly Stein and Defendant Pernecke sought to place Hudson on a performance improvement plan ("PIP")2 predicated on baseless allegations of his deficient performance. (Id. ¶ 24.) In response, Hudson complained that his white colleagues were not as harshly criticized as he was and instead received support and guidance. (Id. ¶ 25.) Moreover, when Hudson did seek out training and guidance, his efforts were met with resistance and led to accusations that he was "difficult." (Id. ¶ 33.)
Hudson reported his colleagues' ongoing harassment and raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the CCSAO to Defendant Ballard-Croft, the Cook County State's Attorney's Chief of Staff. (Id. ¶ 27.) Specifically, Hudson complained that African-American male ASAs were made to feel out of place at the CCSAO and were set up to fail due to the bullying they faced from their non-African-American colleagues or were pushed out of their jobs based on unfounded allegations of misconduct. (Id. ¶ 28.) In addition, he also told Ballard-Croft that his supervisors and coworkers made inappropriate comments about his physique and improperly accused him of being "aggressive." (Id.) Yet, even after following up with Ballard-Croft, Hudson received no response. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.) Consequently, he turned to Human Resources, informing it that his coworkers' bullying and harassment had created a hostile work environment that caused him physical and psychological distress. (Id. ¶ 30.)
As a result of his colleagues' harassment, Hudson began to experience stress-induced back pain. (Id. ¶ 31.) By late March 2017, the pain became so severe that Hudson required medical treatment. (Id.) However, his supervisor discouraged him from taking FMLA leave to seektreatment and instead told him to do it "on his own time."3 (Id.) Moreover, his complaints about his colleagues' behavior yielded no positive changes in his work environment. (Id. ¶ 32.) To the contrary, in July 2017, Hudson was demoted to an administrative position in retaliation for speaking out about his colleagues' behavior. (Id.) Beginning around October 2017, Hudson's coworkers escalated their mistreatment of him. (Id. ¶ 45.) On two separate occasions, a white ASA yelled at Hudson and became aggressive after Hudson made routine inquiries concerning criminal matters to which they were both assigned. (Id. ¶ 40.) Another white female ASA, Sara Kaufman, engaged in a pattern of harassing, bullying, and threatening conduct toward Hudson. (Id. ¶ 43.) On October 6, 2017, after Kaufman called Hudson an asshole, Hudson filed a complaint about her conduct with Human Resources. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 41, 45; FAC, Ex. 4, Dkt. No. 37-1.)
During this period, Defendants Coleman and Cole, both individuals with supervisory authority,4 conspired to get Hudson fired after he informed Cole of the harassment to which he was subjected by her supervisee, Kaufman. (FAC ¶ 36.) Shortly thereafter, Coleman attempted to discipline Hudson but could not cite any deficiency warranting disciplinary measures. (Id. ¶ 37.) Coleman also threatened to report Hudson to Illinois's Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission based on a false claim that he violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), with respect to a case in which he had no involvement. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 51-52.) Around the same time, Cole tampered with Hudson's mail containing his private health insurance information. (Id. ¶¶ 47-48.)Then, after Hudson met with Human Resources to follow up on his complaint regarding Kaufman, Coleman attempted to place Hudson on a PIP, which failed to state how Hudson's performance needed improvement and did not comply with Human Resources' requirements for PIPs. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 54.) In late November 2017, Human Resources responded to Hudson about his complaint, stating that Kaufman would be subject to undisclosed discipline. (Id. ¶ 42; FAC, Ex. 4.) Yet Hudson claims that Kaufman was never disciplined for her misconduct, and indeed, continued to harass him throughout the duration of his employment at the CCSAO. (FAC ¶¶ 42-43.)
On October 23, 2017, Hudson discussed the harassment he was experiencing at the CCSAO with a former coworker. (Id. ¶ 46.) That coworker expressed her belief that Hudson was being treated like he was inferior because he was African American even though he knew "this stuff better than any of them." (Id.) About a month later, Defendant Foxx acknowledged that she had "received an unprecedented number of workplace harassment and discrimination complaints" and would therefore "address this issue and begin mandatory trainings." (Id. ¶ 49.) Upon hearing this acknowledgment from Foxx, Hudson informed her of his experience with harassment and discrimination during his tenure at the CCSAO. (Id.)
Despite his supervisor's earlier discouragement, Hudson ultimately submitted a request for FMLA medical leave to Human Resources, which was approved on December 1, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 59.) When Hudson informed Joly Stein and Pernecke of his impending leave that same day, they told him his request was "unacceptable" and chastised him for seeking medical leave "for no legitimate reason." (Id. ¶ 59.) Shortly thereafter, Hudson received notice, dated December 4, 2017, that his employment at the CCSAO would be terminated effective March 4, 2018.5 (Id.¶¶ 56, 60; FAC, Ex. 5, Dkt. No. 37-2.) Later, Hudson would discover that his employment file contained a November 8, 2017 PIP to which he was never given the opportunity to respond. (FAC ¶ 57.)
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This pleading standard does not necessarily require a complaint to contain detailed factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Rather, "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
The eight-Count FAC sets forth four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,6 two claims under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2615, one claim under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and one state-law claim for IIED. Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants each have filed motions to dismiss that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial