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.

CATALAN v. GRAPHICS

January 28, 2004.

JOSEPHINE CATALAN, Plaintiff,
v.
SCHIELE GRAPHICS, JOHN KONTEK, and SAM PUGLISI, Defendants



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.

BACKGROUND

  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. Page 2

  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 employment.

  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 Page 3 Title VII against each defendant (Count II), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against each defendant (Count III), and Battery against Puglisi (Count IV).

  ANALYSIS

 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 same reason.

 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 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.