Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BLUMENTHAL v. MURRAY

December 5, 1996

Eli Blumenthal, Plaintiff,
v.
George Murray, ind. & in his official cap. as Chief of Police of CHA Police Dept., Sharon Cruse-Boyd, ind. & in her official cap. as Dir. of Human Resources for CHA and The Chicago Housing Authority, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ALESIA

 This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). For the reasons discussed hereafter, Defendants' motion is granted. This matter is dismissed.

 I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff Eli Blumenthal has been employed by Defendant Chicago Housing Authority's ("CHA") Police Department as a captain since March of 1990. In December of 1994, Blumenthal underwent bypass surgery. In September of 1996, Blumenthal began experiencing serious medical problems and commenced paid medical leave on September 6, 1996.

 Thereafter, Blumenthal attempted to utilize unpaid medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. Defendant George Murray --Chief of Police of the CHA -- and Defendant Sharon Cruse-Boyd -- Director of Human Resources of the CHA -- threatened to terminate Blumenthal if he attempted to seek leave under the FMLA.

 Blumenthal subsequently requested FMLA leave on January 11, 1996, and also filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor. The administrative complaint alleged that Defendants had improperly denied Blumenthal his rights under the FMLA and failed to comply with several provisions enacted pursuant to the FMLA.

 On January 26 and February 26, 1996, Murray and Cruse-Boyd again threatened Blumenthal with termination. A pre-termination hearing was scheduled for April 4, 1996.

 In April of 1996, Blumenthal filed a complaint in this Court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief alleging that Defendants violated his rights under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.

  II. DISCUSSION

 This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants offer several arguments as to why Blumenthal's various claims should be dismissed. Following a statement of the legal standard for analyzing a motion to dismiss, the Court must address one procedural issue, then it will address the merits of the motion.

 A. Motion to Dismiss - Legal Standard

 In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court "must accept well pleaded allegations of the complaint as true. In addition, the Court must view these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education, 811 F.2d 1030, 1039 (7th Cir. 1987). Although a complaint is not required to contain a detailed outline of the claim's basis, it nevertheless "must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054, 84 L. Ed. 2d 821, 105 S. Ct. 1758 (1985). Dismissal is not granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957).

 B. The Procedure Issue

 Instead of responding to the issues raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss, Blumenthal's first response discusses whether the CHA is a municipal corporation. *fn1" Because, in Blumenthal's opinion, the CHA is not a municipal corporation, it has no authority to file a pleading in this litigation. Therefore, Blumenthal wants the Court to allow for the substitution of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.