The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mihm, Chief Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss [# 71] and Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Prior Order
and for Extension of Time [# 81]. For the reasons set forth
below, the Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part, and Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED.
On March 13, 1995, three female professors employed at
Illinois State University ("the University"), Dr. Iris I.
Varner, Dr. Teresa M. Palmer, and Dr. Paula J. Pomerenke,
filed a Complaint against Illinois State University, four
officials of Illinois State University, the Board of Regents,
and the ten members of the board. The Complaint has been
certified as a class action on behalf of any female teaching
faculty at Illinois State University who was an Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor, or full Professor anytime
during the period beginning with the 1982-1983 academic year
up to and including the present.
The named Plaintiffs have been employed by the University as
teaching faculty (in the case of one Plaintiff since 1969).
Drs. Varner, Palmer, and Pomerenke allege that from the dates
of their respective employment, they have been paid less than
their male counterparts, given considerations of teaching
experience, the number of classes and class size they taught,
academic papers published, service to the University, and
other matters to go to the quality of their services. The
Complaint further alleges that the Defendants
engaged in retaliation against female professors who
complained of the Defendants' alleged employment practices.
Plaintiffs brought this suit pursuant to the Equal Pay Act,
29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq. This Court has jurisdiction of this
action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.
In resolving a motion to dismiss, this Court must consider
all well-pled facts as true and must draw all inferences in
favor of the non-moving party. Bontkowski v. First Nat. Bank of
Cicero, 998 F.2d 459, 461 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,
510 U.S. 1012, 114 S.Ct. 602, 126 L.Ed.2d 567 (1993). In ruling on a
motion to dismiss, courts consider whether relief is possible
under any set of facts that could be established consistent
with the allegations in the Complaint. Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). This
Court will dismiss a claim only if it is beyond doubt that no
set of facts would entitle the Plaintiffs to relief. Venture
Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 987 F.2d 429,
432 (7th Cir. 1993).
On August 14, 1996, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, to
which Plaintiffs filed a Response instanter on September 10,
1996. In support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants make
the following arguments: (1) By adding a Defendant, Plaintiffs
have amended the pleadings and should file an amended
complaint; and (2) Plaintiffs cannot proceed in federal court
on any claims based on the Equal Pay Act because the State of
Illinois has not consented to suit. Each of these arguments
will be addressed in turn.
John Urice ("Urice") was initially named as a Defendant in
this case. However, Judge James B. Zagel of the Northern
District of Illinois dismissed Urice in an Order dated August
18, 1995 because Urice was not alleged to have participated in
the basic claims of gender discrimination and had been sued in
his individual capacity. Plaintiffs then filed a related suit
making similar allegations against Urice, Case No. 96-1355. On
July 15, 1996, Plaintiffs filed a Motion before this Court to
add Urice as a Defendant once again. The Court granted
Plaintiffs' Motion on July 26, 1996, stating that Urice was to
be added as a named Defendant in this case, and Plaintiffs
were to submit a voluntary dismissal regarding the related
case against Urice. To date, Plaintiffs have taken no steps to
implement this Court's Order.
Plaintiffs have not only failed to file an amended complaint
adding Urice to the present case, but they have also failed to
dismiss the related action. Rather, Plaintiffs state that they
are exercising "an abundance of caution" and have moved to
vacate the order they requested adding Urice as a Defendant in
order "to keep the Title VII and § 1981 claims presented in
96-1355 separate from the issues raised by Defendants under the
Equal Pay Act." (Plaintiffs' Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 2.)
Plaintiffs have presented no logical or practical reason why
two separate suits should be conducted based on the same set of
facts and similar issues. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to
Vacate Prior Order is denied.
Defendants argue that adding a party generally requires an
amendment to the Complaint. In the present case, they claim
that the addition of Urice as a Defendant requires Plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint because there are no allegations
currently pending against him as a result of Judge Zagel's
previous Order dismissing Urice from the case. Thus, without
an amended complaint, Defendants claim that it is not
currently possible to determine what allegations are pending
While notice pleading may not require a plaintiff to plead
in great detail, Rule 8 does require sufficient clarity to
determine that "the pleader is ...