Michalowski v. Rutherford
| Decision Date | 06 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14 C 899 |
| Citation | 82 F.Supp.3d 775 |
| Parties | Edmund Michalowski, Plaintiff, v. Dan Rutherford, State of Illinois, Illinois State Treasurer's Office, Curt Conrad, Kyle Ham, Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee, and Romney for President, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Alice Christine Svenson, Svenson Law Offices, Chicago, IL, Dana L. Kurtz, James G. Vanzant, Kurtz Law Offices, Ltd., Hinsdale, IL, for Plaintiff.
Daniel T. Fahner, Bilal Zaheer, Locke Lord LLP, Robert Leonard Shuftan, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, R. Douglas Rees, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Rachel Laird Tidwell–Neal, Office of the Attorney General, Michael K. Forde, Kevin R. Malloy, Forde Law Offices LLP, Brian Joseph Murray, Kenton J. Skarin, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
On February 10, 2014, Edmund Michalowski filed suit against then-Illinois State Treasurer Dan Rutherford and Kyle Ham, Michalowski's direct supervisor, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt.1.) The court dismissed Michalowski's complaint without prejudice (dkt.25), and Michalowski filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. 26 (“Compl.”).) In the amended complaint, Michalowski added as defendants the State of Illinois, the Illinois State Treasurer's Office (“the ISTO”), Curt Conrad, the Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee (“the Rutherford Campaign”), and Romney for President, Inc. (“the Romney Campaign”). He also added new claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.1
Four motions to dismiss have been filed: (1) by the Romney Campaign (dkt. 39); (2) by Ham, Conrad, the State of Illinois, and the ISTO (“the State Defendants”) (dkt. 44); (3) by Rutherford (dkt. 47); and (4) by the Rutherford Campaign (dkt. 51). Rutherford, Ham, and Conrad (“the individual defendants”) also have moved for sanctions against Michalowski's counsel (dkt. 41), and Michalowski has moved to strike certain exhibits attached to the State Defendants' and the Romney Campaign's motions to dismiss. (Dkt. 68.) For reasons stated below, Michalowski's First Amendment and Title VII claims (Counts III and V) are dismissed with prejudice. Michalowski's RICO claims (Counts I and II) are dismissed without prejudice. The motion to dismiss Michalowski's hostile work environment claim (Count IV) is denied. Michalowski's motion to strike is granted, and the individual defendants' motion for sanctions is denied.
Dan Rutherford was elected Treasurer of the State of Illinois in November 2010 and assumed office in January 2011. (Compl.¶ 12.) As of the filing of the amended complaint, Kyle Ham was chief of staff and Curt Conrad the deputy chief of staff for the ISTO and statewide political director for the Rutherford Campaign. (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.) Rutherford hired Michalowski as the Deputy Director of Community Affairs for the ISTO in January 2011. (Id. ¶ 13.) Michalowski's official job duties included the “conceptualization, design and management of statewide marketing policies and programs, and the building of partnerships with diverse groups including chambers of commerce, labor unions, and veteran, ethnic, religious and civic organizations.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Michalowski reported directly to Ham, who reported to Rutherford. (Id. ¶¶ 16–17.) In March 2011, Michalowski received a promotion in title to Director of Community Affairs. (Id. ¶ 19.) In January 2012, his job was expanded to include the management of the statewide marketing division. (Id. ¶ 49.) He did not receive a raise as a result of either promotion. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 49.)
Soon after Michalowski started at the ISTO, Rutherford told him that he had been hired because he was a Democrat and Rutherford wanted to appear to as a centrist candidate for governor of Illinois and gain “fresh” sources of campaign funding. (Id. ¶¶ 28–29, 62.) Rutherford created a spreadsheet listing potential donors and the amount that Michalowski needed to secure from each one for the Rutherford Campaign. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Michalowski and other ISTO employees were given Rutherford Campaign business cards. (Id. ¶ 42.) Michalowski was also given a Rutherford Campaign email account and Conrad informed him that he was expected to monitor the account for instructions from the Rutherford Campaign. (Id. ¶ 43.) Rutherford, Conrad, and Ham contacted Michalowski several times during his work hours over the next months and demanded that he perform various tasks for the Rutherford Campaign and the Romney Campaign.3 (Id. ¶¶ 44–48.) They told Michalowski that his job was contingent on his performance of political work for both campaigns. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 34, 45.)
As an example of the work he was forced to perform, Michalowski alleges that he was required to coordinate groups of college students to collect signatures for the Romney Campaign. (Id. ¶¶ 53–54.) After the students failed to collect enough signatures, Rutherford refused to pay them and told Michalowski that he would be fired if he did not cover the cost of the signature drive out of his own pocket. (Id. ¶¶ 55–57.)
In addition, Michalowski was ordered to donate money to “non-office government functions that would benefit both [the] Rutherford and the Romney Campaigns.” (Id. ¶ 50.) When Michalowski complained about the order, Ham informed him that Rutherford required the donations in lieu of political donations to the campaigns. (Id. ¶ 51.) Michalowski gave the demanded cash donation to Ham at the ISTO in Chicago. (Id. ¶ 52.)
Other ISTO employees also were forced to work for the Rutherford Campaign. (Id. ¶ 58.) For example, Rutherford required ISTO employees to accompany him to political campaign events and take pictures, which were then mailed to individuals using reduced postage rates available to the State. (Id. ¶ 59.) Rutherford also used State-employed drivers to transport him to campaign events. (Id. ¶ 64.) When Michalowski objected to these practices, Rutherford, Conrad, and Ham told him he was a “troublemaker” and that ISTO resources were needed for Rutherford's campaign for governor. (Id. ¶¶ 61–63, 65.)
In the summer and fall of 2013, Ham and Conrad directed Michalowski to organize community marketing events with groups likely to vote for Rutherford. (Id. ¶¶ 66–68.) Rutherford also ordered ISTO employees to find personal contacts to fill the community affairs and marketing calendar to benefit Rutherford's campaign for governor. (Id. ¶ 69.) When Michalowski objected, Ham threatened that Michalowski would be fired if he did not follow Rutherford's direction. (Id. ¶ 70.)
Michalowski asserts that he was passed over for raises and promotions during his time at the ISTO and that employees who did not complain about the forced work for the Rutherford and Romney campaigns were rewarded with raises and benefits. (Id. ¶¶ 73–74.) In late 2013, Rutherford and Ham created a “hit list” of ISTO employees, including Michalowski, who would be fired because they did not adequately support the Rutherford and Romney campaigns. (Id. ¶ 72.) Michalowski resigned from the ISTO in February 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 103.)4
Michalowski alleges six specific instances of sexual harassment. First, while Michalowski was at Rutherford's house in Chenoa, Illinois on April 2, 2011, Michalowski alleges that Rutherford entered his bedroom and grabbed at his genitals. (Id. ¶¶ 75–79.) Michalowski left Rutherford's house immediately. (Id. ¶ 79.) Second, Conrad texted Michalowski in July 2011, (Id. ¶ 82.) Third, while at a bar with ISTO employees in August 2011, Rutherford complained that Michalowski was talking to a group of women rather than to him and told Michalowski, “[I]f you go home with me, you can have anything you want in the office.” (Id. ¶¶ 83–89.) Fourth, Rutherford asked Michalowski to go to his hotel room after a reception at the Republican National Convention in August 2012 and became angry when Michalowski refused. (Id. ¶¶ 91–93.) Fifth, at a holiday party in December 2013, Rutherford rubbed Michalowski's shoulders and said, “[Y]ou need a full body massage.” (Id. ¶ 95.) And sixth, in December 2013, Rutherford told another ISTO employee in Michalowski's presence, (Id. ¶ 97.)
Michalowski reported the April 2011, August 2011, and August 2012 events to Ham, who responded that the same things had happened to him, told Michalowski he was not a team player, and stated “at least we have job security.” (Id. ¶¶ 80–81, 89–90, 94.) Michalowski alleges that he filed a charge of discrimination against the ISTO and/or the State of Illinois on February 14, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 146–47.) Michalowski received a notice of right to sue on November 18, 2014. (Dkt. 73.)
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges a complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. Active Disposal, Inc., 635 F.3d at 886. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of a claim's basis but must also establish that the requested relief is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The allegations in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gress v. Safespeed, LLC
... ... cannot state a claim for conspiracy under Section 1962(d) ... based on those same facts.”); Michalowski" v ... Rutherford , 82 F.Supp.3d 775, 791 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ... (“Where a plaintiff fails to allege a claim under ... § 1962(c) \xE2\x80" ... ...
-
Parker v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n, Case No. 12-cv-8275
...2007) (plaintiff was not speaking as a citizen when he reported his colleagues' misconduct to supervisors); Michalowski v. Rutherford, 82 F.Supp.3d 775, 794 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (plaintiff was acting in his official capacity when he made complaints to his superiors); Foster v. Blagojevich, No. ......
-
Sailsbery v. Vill. of Sauk Vill.
...sufficiently alleges that Mayor Hanks and Fairman retaliated against Sailsbery because she is awoman. See Michalowski v. Rutherford, 82 F. Supp. 3d 775, 795 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (plaintiff sufficiently alleged gender-based violation under § 1983 with conclusory allegations that wrongs were "bas......
-
Glen Flora Dental Ctr., Ltd. v. First Eagle Bank
...claims only "where the corporation plays the role of the central figure or aggressor in the alleged scheme." Michalowski v. Rutherford, 82 F. Supp. 3d 775, 786 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (quoting Nystrom v. Associated Plastic Fabricators, Inc., Profit-Sharing & Sav. Plan & Tr., No. 98 C 134, 1999 WL ......