Peters v. Mundelein Consol. High Sch. Dist. No. 120
| Docket Number | 21 C 0336 |
| Decision Date | 09 February 2022 |
| Parties | MICHELLE PETERS, Plaintiff, v. MUNDELEIN CONSOLIDATED HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 120, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
In January 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Peters filed a complaint alleging that her employer, Defendant Mundelein Consolidated High School District No. 120 (“MHS”), violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff now seeks to amend her complaint to include allegations that MHS and several MHS employees retaliated against her after she reported the presence of black mold at the high school. Based on these allegations, she also seeks to add those employees as Defendants and bring additional claims for First Amendment retaliation, whistleblower retaliation, and illegal wiretapping. For the reasons discussed below, the court denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint [16], and grants MHS's motion to dismiss the original complaint [8].
For purposes of this ruling, the court presumes the allegations of the proposed amended complaint are true. In that complaint, Plaintiff Michelle Peters (“Peters” or “Plaintiff”) makes allegations against her employer, Mundelein Consolidated High School District No. 120 (“Defendant MHS”) and several individuals associated with MHS: Shane McCreery, Sarah Davis, and Wendy Inman (collectively, the “proposed Defendants”). (Proposed Am. Compl., Ex. 1 to Mt'n to Am. Compl. [16-1] (hereinafter “PAC”) ¶¶ 8, 11, 15.) MHS is a comprehensive, one-building high school with approximately 2, 000 students and more than 100 employees. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6.)
Plaintiff was hired by MHS in 2001, and asserts that “[d]uring the relevant time period, ” she worked as a Special Education teacher for children with a variety of disabilities. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 21-22.) Proposed Defendant Sarah Davis also worked for MHS in an unspecified role. (Id. ¶¶ 12-14.) A second proposed Defendant, Wendy Inman, “acted within the scope of her employment and at the direction of [MHS] and its officials”; her position with MHS is also not specified. (Id. ¶¶ 15- 16.) The final proposed Defendant, Shane McCreery, was hired as Mundelein's Director of Human Resources in August 2018 and continued in that role until (on an unidentified date) becoming Chief of Staff. (Id. ¶ 8.) Although the complaint does not make clear whether McCreery was employed by the high school or by the city, it does allege that he had final policymaking authority for the school either in his own capacity or by delegation from other unspecified individuals. (Id. ¶ 9.)
At some point (the proposed complaint does not make clear), Plaintiff discovered the presence of black mold at MHS. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff has not alleged where within the school she discovered the black mold, but it alleges that she believed that the black mold was dangerous and that it threatened the health and safety of people exposed to it. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26.) Thus, sometime in November 2017, Plaintiff reported the issue to unnamed MHS officials and asked them to cure the condition. (Id. ¶ 27.) Without identifying the persons she spoke to or those who should have responded, Plaintiff alleges that “Mundelein High School refused to act to cure the dangerous condition of the black mold.” (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff then reported the issue to at least three government agencies, explaining that she had reasonable cause to believe that the presence of black mold at MHS was a safety hazard and violated a state or federal law, rule or regulation. (Id. ¶ 29.) The complaint alleges the following reports: to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on November 26, 2017 and to the Lake County Department of Health on December 1, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 30-32.) The complaint does not say how or whether the governmental agencies responded to these reports. MHS “knew and should have known” that Plaintiff made these reports, the complaint alleges without identifying which MHS official knew of the reports or how those individual[s] learned of them. (Id. ¶ 33.)
MHS then began a “campaign of harassment” in retaliation for Plaintiff's report. The complaint does not identify the individuals who spearheaded or participated in this campaign. (Id. ¶ 34.) It does allege that MHS engaged in a practice of retaliating against any MHS employee who questioned or reported the school's black mold issue. Plaintiff alleges “on information and belief” that other unnamed employees suffered retaliation after making reports, and that this practice of retaliation was “well known among MHS teachers and staff.” (Id. ¶¶ 35-37.) MHS's retaliation against Plaintiff included (without specifics) “giving her work worse assignments and unfairly criticizing her work.” (Id. ¶ 38.) The campaign of retaliation also included a March 6, 2018 incident, when MHS falsely accused Plaintiff of inappropriately physically touching a student, and placed her on administrative leave. Again, Plaintiff has not identified the individual who imposed the discipline, nor has Plaintiff explained how that person became aware of her complaints about black mold. (Id. ¶¶ 39-40.)
About eight months after her administrative leave, in November 2018, Plaintiff informed MHS officials (she does not say who) that she required reasonable accommodations for a disability. She does not identify the nature of the disability, but asserts that the (also unidentified) accommodations she requested would not have caused “undue hardship.” (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) In the original complaint Plaintiff alleged that on January 17, 2019, she met with MHS officials to discuss the requested accommodations. (Original Compl. [1] (hereinafter “OC”) ¶ 19.) The proposed amended complaint makes no mention of such a meeting nor any reference to the interactive process. On January 22, 2019, MHS denied Plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodations. (PAC ¶ 44.) Without identifying the person who made or communicated this decision, or the reasons offered for it, Plaintiff alleges that MHS had no legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying the request and did not honestly believe the reasons it gave. (Id. ¶¶ 45-46.)
Plaintiff hired a lawyer to contest MHS's denial of her accommodations request. (Id. ¶ 47.) On April 8, 2019, about five months after Plaintiff's accommodations request and about two-and-a-half months after MHS's denial, MHS agreed to grant Plaintiff “some” of her requested accommodations (she does not further identify the accommodations MHS granted). (Id. ¶ 49.) It appears she returned to work at that point: “[b]etween January 2019 and April 8, 2019, while Plaintiff's requests for reasonable accommodations were denied, Plaintiff was not working, was unpaid, and was forced to use 44 days of earned benefit time [i.e., sick days].” (Id. ¶ 48.) The complaint alleges that “Mundelein High School refused to compensate Plaintiff for her use of 44 sick days, ” but does not identify any individual who made this decision. (Id. ¶ 50.)
The next episode of alleged wrongdoing occurred more than a year and a half later, on December 15, 2020. On that day, Shane McCreery (Mundelein's Director of Human Resources) directed Sarah Davis and Wendy Inman (whose roles at MHS are not identified) to “eavesdrop” on Plaintiff's Zoom classroom, allegedly in violation of an MHS policy.[1] (Id. ¶¶ 56-58.) The proposed complaint does not specify how Davis and Inman accessed the Zoom classroom, or what the “eavesdropping” entailed (for example, whether they recorded the Zoom class or just observed). There were no immediate consequences stemming from this eavesdropping incident.[2] Then, on December 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim “related [to] her disability and being exposed to fragrances at work”; again, she says nothing about the nature of the disability and does not explain the implications of exposure to fragrances. (Id. ¶ 51.) About two weeks later, on January 8, 2021, Plaintiff amended her workers' compensation claim to add allegations “relating to the presence of black mold in the workplace.” (Id. ¶ 52.) A week after Plaintiff amended her claim, on January 14, 2021, McCreery “disciplined” Plaintiff for “one, discrete comment made in a classroom chat”; this information about the classroom chat stemmed from Davis and Inman's eavesdropping on December 15. (Id. ¶¶ 53, 56.) The complaint says nothing more about the nature of the discipline or the “discrete comment” that prompted it.
Soon after the allegedly unwarranted discipline, on January 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), naming MHS as a Defendant. In response to MHS's motion to dismiss that complaint [8], Plaintiff moved on April 30, 2021 for leave to amend the complaint [16]. Her proposed amended complaint continues to allege ADA violations, but Plaintiff has removed the allegation made earlier, that MHS engaged in the interactive process before denying her accommodations request. (OC ¶ 19.) Plaintiff also adds new proposed Defendants (McCreery, Davis, and Iman) and factual allegations (the black mold reporting and retaliation, Plaintiff's workers' compensation claims, and the Zoom eavesdropping). In addition to the ADA claim (Count I), the proposed complaint alleges First Amendment retaliation (Count II) and violations of the Illinois Whistleblower Act (Count III), the Wiretap Act (Count IV), and the Illinois Eavesdropping Act (Count V). (PAC ¶¶ 59-102.) MHS requests that this court deny leave to amend, arguing that the proposed amended pleading is futile, because it would not survive a motion to dismiss [19].
Where a party seeks to amend...
To continue reading
Request your trial