The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bucklo, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Beverly Bowers, brought this action against her
former employer, the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.,
[the "Radiological Society"], and her former manager, Dana Davis,
harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and tortious
interference with business expectancy. The defendants move to
dismiss on various grounds. For the following reasons, the motion
to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Beverly Bowers was recruited by Dana Davis, the assistant
executive director of the Radiological Society, for the position
of manager in the office of research development at the
Radiological Society. Ms. Davis had previously made sexual
advances toward Ms. Bowers while they were both working for the
American School Health Association, and Ms. Davis assured Ms.
Bowers that this would not happen at the Radiological Society.
After moving to the Chicago area for the position with the
Radiological Society, Ms. Bowers stayed with Ms. Davis and
another co-worker in Ms. Davis' townhouse. During this time Ms.
Davis again made advances toward Ms. Bowers, which Ms. Bowers
rejected. In May 1995 Ms. Bowers moved out of the townhouse.
After Ms. Bowers rejected the advances, Ms. Davis avoided
interacting with her and in June 1995 gave her a performance
review that Ms. Bowers thought was unfairly negative. When Ms.
Bowers tried to discuss the review with Ms. Davis, Ms. Davis
became angry and told Ms. Bowers she needed to learn to get along
with her. In July 1995, Ms. Davis replaced Ms. Bowers with a male
employee who was less qualified. Ms. Bowers continued to work at
the Radiological Society in the office of research development,
and in January 1997 Ms. Davis gave Ms. Bowers another performance
evaluation that Ms. Bowers felt was unfair. Ms. Bowers did not
complain because of the previous, negative response. In August
1997, Ms. Davis discouraged Ms. Bowers from applying for the
position of assistant director of the office of research
development, a position that Ms. Bowers had just created. In
February 1998 Ms. Bowers was discharged, on the ground that her
position was going to be eliminated.*fn2
The complaint alleges that Ms. Davis created a hostile and
abusive work environment by verbal and physical conduct, that she
encouraged her subordinates to engage in offensive behavior, and
that she made disparaging remarks about sexual harassment. The
complaint further alleges that the Radiological Society was aware
of the conduct and failed to take corrective action. Count I of
the complaint alleges that Ms. Bowers was subjected to a hostile
work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. Count II
alleges retaliation, and count III alleges tortious interference
with business expectancy. The defendants move to dismiss the
Motion to Dismiss Count I
The defendants first argue that the bulk of the allegations in
count I are untimely. Under Title VII, a charge of employment
discrimination must be filed within 300 days of the alleged
violation, or the claims are barred. Speer v. Rand McNally &
Co., 123 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 1997) Ms. Bowers filed her EEOC
charge on May 1, 1998, and the defendants argue that any
allegations regarding events that took place before July 5, 1997
Ms. Bowers relies on the continuing violation doctrine to bring
her claims within the applicable time period. Specifically, Ms.
Bowers argues that she realized she was a victim of
only after a series of actions took place. In such a situation,
the 300-day filing period begins to run when the plaintiff knew,
or with the exercise of due diligence should have known, of the
discrimination. Jones v. Merchants Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of
Indianapolis, 42 F.3d 1054, 1058 (7th Cir. 1994). The purpose of
allowing a plaintiff to bring an action under the continuing
violation doctrine "is to permit the inclusion of acts whose
character as discriminatory acts was not apparent at the time
they occurred." Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439,
446 (7th Cir. 1994). Ms. Bowers alleges in the complaint that,
throughout her employment with the Radiological Society, she was
subjected to various forms of sexual harassment. Whether Ms.
Bowers knew or should have known that the acts of which she
complains were discriminatory at the time they occurred cannot be
determined on a motion to dismiss. It is therefore premature to
determine whether allegations relating to events before July 5,
1997 are untimely.
The defendants next argue that the allegations relating to the
replacement of Ms. Bowers with David Laubert in the position of
manager of the office of research development are outside the
scope of the EEOC charge and should be stricken from the
complaint. A plaintiff may include a claim in a federal complaint
that was not brought in charges filed with the EEOC if a
two-prong test is satisfied: "(1) the claim is like or reasonably
related to the EEOC charges, and (2) the claim in the complaint
reasonably could develop from the EEOC investigation into the
original charges." Harper v. Godfrey Co., 45 F.3d 143, 148 (7th
Cir. 1995). A claim is reasonably related to allegations in an
EEOC charge if a factual relationship exits. Id. at 148. "This
means that the EEOC charge and the complaint must, at minimum,
describe the same conduct and implicate the same
individuals." Id. (quoting Cheek v. Western & S. Life Ins.
Co., 31 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 1994)).
According to Ms. Bowers' EEOC charge, she was employed by the
Radiological Society as a manager of the office of research
development from November 1994 until February 1998. The EEOC
charge does not mention that she was ever replaced in her
position, much less that she was replaced by Mr. Laubert, a male
with fewer qualifications. Allowing Ms. Bowers to bring this
claim in federal court "would frustrate the EEOC's investigatory
and conciliatory role, as well as deprive the charged party of
notice of the charge." Cheek, 31 F.3d at 500. Because Ms.
Bowers' EEOC charge does not mention that she was replaced in her
position as manager or implicate Mr. Laubert, the allegations in
the complaint involving her replacement with Mr. Laubert are
outside the EEOC charge and are stricken from the complaint.
The defendants next argue that Ms. Bowers has complained of
conduct by Ms. Davis that does not constitute adverse employment
action. First, the defendants object to the allegation that Ms.
Bowers received unfair performance reviews. In support of their
argument defendants cite Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437
(7th Cir. 1996). In Smart, the Seventh Circuit held that
negative performance evaluations standing alone cannot constitute
adverse employment action. Id. at 442-43. The court
distinguished cases where negative reviews were not the sole
claimed adverse action. Id. at 442. Ms. Bowers has alleged that
as a result of the harassment, she was discharged. Therefore,
although the negative reviews standing alone do not constitute
adverse action, the complaint sufficiently alleges adverse
action. The defendants also object to the allegation that Ms.
Bowers was discouraged from applying for the position of
assistant director of the office of research development. Looking
at the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Bowers, however,
the complaint alleges that Ms. Bowers was discouraged from
applying for a viable position within the office of research
when her own position was being eliminated; she was then
discharged. These allegations are sufficient to survive the
defendant's motion to dismiss.*fn3
The defendants further argue that count I should be dismissed
because Ms. Bowers has failed to allege a nexus between the
sexual harassment and her termination. The complaint, however,
alleges that as a result of the harassment by Ms. Davis, Ms.
Bowers was discharged. The exact circumstances of the discharge,
and the true reasons behind the discharge, cannot be determined
on a motion to dismiss. ...