The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOAN GOTTSCHALL, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Josephine Catalan has brought this action against her
former employer, Schiele Graphics ("Schiele"), and two of her
supervisors, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress ("HED"), and Battery. Defendants Schiele
and John Kontek have moved to dismiss parts of Catalan's Complaint. For
the reasons stated below, defendants' respective motions to dismiss are
each granted in part and denied in part. Count I of Catalan's Complaint
(Sexual Harassment) is dismissed as to defendants Kontek and Puglisi, and
Count II (Retaliation) is dismissed as to all defendants. Defendants'
respective motions to dismiss Count III (IIED) are denied.
At all times relevant to her claims, plaintiff Josephine Catalan was
employed as a maintenance worker for defendant Schiele. Catalan alleges
that during her employment she was sexually harassed by her supervisors
and that her employment was terminated when she complained of the
harassment to Schiele's president.
Specifically, Catalan alleges that, during the first year of her
employment, her supervisor, John Kontek, repeatedly directed sexually
offensive remarks at her "while leering at her body," and arranged
private meetings with Catalan during which he attempted to discuss
sexually explicit topics with her. Catalan claims that when she rejected
Kontek's advances, Kontek forced her to take on additional tasks at
Schiele's bindery without additional pay.
Catalan alleges that the harassment continued under Kontek's
replacement, defendant Sam Puglisi. Catalan alleges that Puglisi
continually asked Catalan if she "wanted to sit on his lap," and that he
frequently pinched her breasts and snapped her bra strap. When Catalan
confronted Puglisi regarding his conduct, Puglisi continued to assign her
tasks beyond her normally assigned duties and warned her that she would
lose her job if she complained.
Catalan claims that she repeatedly complained to Schiele's president
regarding Kontek's and Puglisi's conduct. She alleges that Schiele did
nothing to remedy the harassment and refused to compensate her for her
additional duties. Catalan further alleges that on December 13, 2001,
shortly after she complained of Puglisi's conduct, Schiele terminated her
On August 13, 2002, Catalan filed a gender discrimination charge with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The factual narration in her
EEOC charge details her allegations of sex discrimination but makes no
express mention of retaliation by Schiele. In filling out the EEOC charge
form, Catalan checked the box indicating a charge of "Sex" discrimination
but did not check the available "Retaliation" box. The EEOC issued a
right to sue letter to Catalan on April 29, 2003.
Catalan has brought four claims based on the allegations in her
Complaint: Sexual Harassment in violation of Title VII against each
defendant (Count I), Retaliation in violation of
Title VII against each defendant (Count II), Intentional Infliction
of Emotional Distress against each defendant (Count III), and Battery
against Puglisi (Count IV).
I. Catalan's Title VII Claims Against Kontek (Counts I and II).
Catalan concedes in her response that her former supervisor, Kontek, is
not an "employer" within the meaning of Title VII. (Pl. Resp. at 2, n. 1.)
Since Title VII does not impose individual liability on an employer's
agents, Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552, 553-54 (7th Cir.
1995), the court finds that Catalan cannot state any facts which would
enable her to recover under Title VII against her individual supervisors.
Defendant Kontek's motion to dismiss Counts I and II of Catalan's
Complaint is granted. Although defendant Puglisi has not appeared in this
case, Catalan's Title VII claims against Puglisi are dismissed for the
II. Catalan's Retaliation Claim Against Schiele (Count II).
Defendant Schiele argues that Count II of Catalan's Complaint
(Retaliation) should be dismissed because the retaliation claim is beyond