United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
August 1, 2003
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Zagel, District Judge
On May 8, 2003, I entered defendant's motion to dismiss and ordered plaintiff to answer by May 29, 2003, and defendant to reply by June 12, 2003. Plaintiff did not respond to defendant's motion, and on June 12, 2003, defendant filed its reply memorandum requesting that I grant its motion to dismiss.
Because plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion, it is unopposed. Defendant asks that I dismiss the § 1981 allegations in Counts I and II and the allegations in paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 of Count II. Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment and retaliation. Because claims of sexual harassment are not cognizable under § 1981, these allegations are dismissed. Friedel v. City of Madison, 832 F.2d 965, 967 n. 1 (7 th Cir. 1987). Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 of Count II (retaliation) allege that defendant failed to stop the alleged harassment, gave plaintiff a bad review, and withheld plaintiff's paychecks beyond the regular payday, respectively. Defendant's alleged failure to stop the harassment is relevant to the issue of discrimination, not retaliation, and giving plaintiff a bad review and giving her paychecks late are not materially adverse employment actions. Therefore, these allegations are dismissed.
For these reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. [ Page 1]
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.