Thomas v. Chi. Teachers' Pension Fund
| Decision Date | 22 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21 C 1844 |
| Parties | ALBERT THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TEACHERS' PENSION FUND, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is granted for the reasons stated below.
Plaintiff Albert Thomas, a 64-year-old African-American man who is employed as a Senior Accountant by the defendant Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund (the “Fund”), sues the Fund for race discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (Counts I and II); age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and the IHRA (Counts III and IV); and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the IHRA (Counts V and VI). Thomas also alleges that the Fund violated the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/1 et seq. (Count VII).
Thomas alleges the following. He is a longtime employee of defendant and has been responsible for oversight of the pension funds. After 2012, he began to suspect accounting errors at the Fund. After Thomas reported the errors to his boss, an accounting was performed; it revealed that “payments were made incorrectly” and “there were accounting errors.” .) Thomas reported these errors to his boss, the Fund's CFO who told Thomas “not to do anything or report anything to anyone.” (Id. ¶ 15.) When a new CFO subsequently took over, Thomas “reported the auditor's findings . . . to the new CFO, ” who also told Thomas “not to report or do anything.” (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) Thomas nonetheless told “three other persons, ” but “realized that no errors were going to be corrected and/or reported to the affected accountholders and/or their representatives.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Recently, the Fund decided “to arbitrarily come up with an amount vastly different from the true errors, an amount which had been calculated by an independent contractor.” (Id. ¶ 19.) In 2019, Thomas “pursued legal action” against the Fund in relation to the alleged accounting errors. (Id. ¶ 20.) He says that he has suffered retaliation for his reports of errors.
Thomas further alleges that he has applied for “numerous promotions” at the Fund, including in 2019 for a position as Operation Manager of Accounting. He was informed that a written skills test would be required but received no further information or instruction from the Fund. Thomas later found out that the other candidates for the position were given the test topics well in advance of the final interview; this information was withheld from Thomas, which “caused him to be disadvantaged and ultimately denied the position.” (Id. ¶ 25.) In February 2020, Thomas applied for a position as Accounting Manager. Despite having the requisite experience and qualifications, he did not get an interview. The Fund filled that position with a temporary employee who had no familiarity or history with the Fund and lacked the necessary accounting experience. Thomas had to train that employee on “historical processes and accounting procedures.” (Id. ¶ 29.)
Shortly after Thomas “requested additional approval to write off about $8 million, ” the Fund “began to isolate, bully, and harass” him. (Id. ¶ 30.) Thomas was accused of insubordination for “requesting a higher approval” for the write-off. Over the last year, Thomas's job duties have “continued to increase.” (Id. ¶ 35.) He is required to perform tasks associated with the higher-level positions of Accounting Manager and Operations Manager, but he has been denied the salaries that correspond to those positions. In Thomas's view, the Fund is “intentionally denying” him an opportunity to be promoted. (Id. ¶ 36.)
Thomas alleges that he has been “treated differently from” employees who are not African American. This treatment “includ[es] being denied promotions and being paid less than other employees.” (Id. ¶ 37.) He also claims that he has been treated differently “on account of his age” and “is being paid less and denied promotions on the basis of his age.” (Id. ¶ 38.) Thomas asserts that “several younger, less-qualified female non-African American employees” with less seniority have been “promoted over him.” (Id. ¶ 39.) Thomas also was treated differently from them; for instance, he was excluded from discussions of computer issues and denied the opportunity to learn different software systems, due to his age. When Thomas complained, he suffered retaliation in the form of “lack of promotion and lesser pay, ” and the Fund's “agent, Michael Aguilar, ” “began micro-managing and harassing” him. (Id. ¶¶ 40, 43.) Aguilar accused Thomas of “skipping out on work” when Thomas took a restroom break, and he “became very upset” with Thomas when he was late to a meeting with Aguilar as a result of taking time to speak with a board member of the Fund. (Id. ¶¶ 44-49.)
Thomas says that the Fund “launched a campaign” to fire him. (Id. ¶ 50.) He overheard coworkers talking about “get[ting] rid of” him. (Id. ¶ 51.) Aguilar “yell[ed] and scream[ed]” at Thomas in a meeting and, in a later conversation, called him the n-word. (Id. ¶¶ 53-55.) Nothing was done when Thomas complained “to an agent of Defendant” about Aguilar's having spoken to him in a derogatory manner. (Id. ¶¶ 56-57.) When Thomas and other employees could not come in to work because of a severe snowstorm, Aguilar and another employee gave Thomas “a hard time.” (Id. ¶¶ 58-59.) Thomas was given a two-page memorandum “warning him about trivial issues and/or mistakes, ” and he had to sign a written policy regarding leave. (Id. ¶ 60.) When he complained to the Fund's board of directors and its hotline about “this retaliation, harassment, and discrimination, ” the Fund never responded, investigated, or interviewed Thomas. (Id. ¶ 61.)
During meetings with Aguilar and other staff, Aguilar regularly instructed Thomas, but no one else, to take notes. Aguilar gave female employees preferential treatment with respect to days off, absences, tardy arrivals, and the ability to work from home. The Fund has designated certain days as “blackout” days on which employees are not permitted to take off. Aguilar gave a female employee the day off on a “blackout” day but did not permit Thomas to take off on such days. When Thomas asked Aguilar about it, Aguilar told him not to question him because it undermined his authority. Thomas reported this conduct to an internal auditor, who said that she passed his comments along to the board. Nothing was done.
The Fund moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
For purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepts as true all well-pleaded facts, and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Bell v. City of Chi., 835 F.3d 736, 738 (7th Cir. 2016). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must comply with Rule 8 by containing “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)). “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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
The Fund first contends that plaintiff fails to present a legally cognizable claim for relief with respect to his Title VII ADEA, and IHRA claims (Counts I through VI) because he raises claims that were not included in or reasonably related to his administrative charge and thus administratively exhausted. In the Fund's view, plaintiff's charge is “so vague that it failed to put the Fund on notice of the nature of Plaintiff's claims, ” so none of his discrimination claims in the instant case can be said to be encompassed by the charge. (ECF No. 22, Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. at 3.)
Plaintiff alleges that he “filed a complaint with the . . . EEOC on the basis of age, race, and retaliation and received his Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on January 12, 2021.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 71.) Plaintiff did not attach his charge to his complaints, but defendant attached it to the memorandum in support of its motion.[1] The charge reflects that it was filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) and cross-filed with the EEOC. (ECF No. 22-1, Charge.) It is dated November 2, 2020 and stamped “Received November 6, 2020.”
In the charge, plaintiff checked the boxes for retaliation and discrimination based on race and age, [2] and in the “particulars” box, he stated in full as follows:
I began my employment with [the Fund] on or about March 9, 2015. My most current position is Senior Accountant. During my employment with [the Fund], I was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to, not getting raises like other non black employees. I applied for a promotion and I was not selected. I believe I was discriminated [sic] because of my race, black in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act [of] 1964, as amended. I also believe I was discriminated [sic] because of my age, 64, (YOB: 1956), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.
(Id.) Plaintiff entered “10-26-2020” in the boxes marked “earliest” and “latest” “date(s) discrimination took place, ” and also checked the box “continuing action.” (Id.)
“In general, a plaintiff can only bring claims under Title VII or the IHRA...
To continue reading
Request your trial