The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOAN H. LEFKOW, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Yuling Zhan ("Zhan"), brings this pro se civil
action alleging that defendant, County of Cook ("Cook County"),
discriminated against her on the basis of her age in violation of
the Age Discrimination Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
("ADEA"), and her national origin in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq. ("Title VII"), by firing her from her position as Junior
Database Administrator. She also alleges that Cook County defamed
her in retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint with the
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ("EEOC") and the Illinois
Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). In addition, Zhan alleges
that Cook County violated the Equal Pay Act and committed fraud.
Before the court is Cook County's motion to dismiss the complaint
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). For the
reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint be "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." This rule "is the starting point of a simplified
pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of
the claim." Sweirkiewicz v. Soreman, 534 U.S. 506, 514
(2002). A complaint satisfies the requirements of Rule 8(a) when
"it gives respondent fair notice of the basis for petitioner's
claims." Id. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 8(a), a
plaintiff must only provide a "short and plain statement"; the
particulars of the claim are not required. Midwest Gas Servs.
v. Ind. Gas Co., 317 F.3d 703, 710 (7th Cir. 2002).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the
sufficiency of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. General Elec. Capital Corp. v.
Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir. 1997).
Dismissal is appropriate only if it appears beyond a doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 732
(7th Cir. 2001). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court
accepts as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint,
and it draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the
plaintiff's favor. Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485, 486 (7th Cir.
2002). In a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court
relaxes the liberal standards of notice pleading, and the
"complaint must be liberally construed and is entitled to less
stringent scrutiny than those prepared by counsel." Gutierrez
v. Peters, 111 F. 3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Zhan, a fifty-one year old woman born in China, was hired by
the Cook County Treasurer's Officer on March 26, 2001 to assist
in the construction of computer databases. Zhan spoke English and
had ten years' experience working in a law firm and an insurance
office in the United States. She was the only employee in the
Treasurer's Office from China. Zhan claims that she experienced discrimination from the
beginning of her employment with Cook County because of her
national origin and her age. First, Cook County advertised the
job as offering a salary of $45,000 per year, but only paid Zhan
$30,000 per year, though her educational background and work
experience were as good or better than the requirements
identified in the advertisement. At work, one of Zhan's
supervisors, Lora McDonald, ridiculed Zhan in front of other
employees, saying things such as "Yuling talks like a two year
old." Zhan's supervisors required her to communicate with the
Treasurer through an intern, while other employees could
communicate with the Treasurer directly. Nevertheless, she
received positive evaluations and no negative written or verbal
comments on her job performance.
At some point during Zhan's employment, Cook County began to
experience frequent problems with the office's email system. One
of Zhan's supervisors, Mr. Allen, warned Zhan that "everybody is
in danger" after the Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer threatened to
fire "anyone responsible."
On July 12, 2001, Cook County fired Zhan, citing the need to
cut staff and stating that her productivity was low. She was the
only employee fired, though her work performance compared
favorably to a younger database administrator, Mr. Wilson, who
was twenty-eight years old and "shared the same ethnic and
ancestry background as the Treasurer and many others." Wilson had
worked only part-time prior to his employment at the Treasurer's
Office. After Zhan was fired, Wilson's salary was increased to
$60,000 per year. Furthermore, three weeks before Zhan was fired,
her supervisors informed her that she was being assigned to
advanced training. Cook County claims that the position of Junior
Database Administrator was eliminated because "it required a
skill set that was insufficient to keep up with its growing
needs." However, shortly after firing Zhan, Cook County advertised an opening for the same
position.
On August 28, 2001, Zhan filed a discrimination complaint with
the IDHR and the EEOC, alleging that her performance had been
satisfactory and that Cook County had discriminated against her
on the basis of her national origin when it fired her. A later
charge filed with the IDHR and the EEOC added age discrimination
to Zhan's complaints against the county. After Zhan filed her
complaints, she received a copy of an undated memorandum and an
undated letter from Christina Kallaris, Director of Human
Resources for Cook County. The letter states that Zhan had been
hired in 2001 on a probationary basis. It continued,
The Department of Information Technology is currently
making changes and evaluating its operations. The
functionality of a Jr. Database Manager no longer
meets the departmental needs. Consequently, we felt
that it was needed to sever our relationship at this
time in order to fulfill our operational needs.
The memorandum states that Zhan's ninety-day probation period
has been extended for ninety more days. Zhan claims that the
documents are forgeries. She also claims that Cook County
retaliated against her by defaming her in describing her job
performance.
On October 16, 2003, the EEOC issued Zhan a right to sue
letter. On December 16, 2003, Zhan filed a complaint of
employment discrimination before this court. The complaint
included an eight page "List of Facts" and nine exhibits. On
March 8, 2004, Zhan filed a pleading entitled "Amendment and
Suplement [sic] to the Complaint," which included nine more
pages of exhibits. On March 23, 2004, Zhan filed a "Return of
Service" form with the Office of the Clerk for this court, which
shows that the complaint, amendment, and summons were served on
March 10, 2004, by leaving a copy with the receptionist at the
offices of the Cook County Treasurer's Office at 118 North Clark
Street, Room #112, Chicago, Illinois, 60602. DISCUSSION
Zhan's complaint and amendment contain multiple pages of
exhibits. Cook County first argues that the complaint should be
dismissed because these exhibits violate the pleading
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which
requires that a claim be "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). Cook County relies on Michaelis v. Nebraska
State Bar Ass'n, 717 F. 2d 437 (8th Cir. 1983). In
Michaelis, the court dismissed with prejudice the complaint of
a lawyer challenging his disbarment. Id. at 49. The plaintiff
had filed multiple complaints in violation of Rule 8, and the
court found that "the style and prolixity of these pleadings
would have made an orderly trial impossible[;] [the defendant's]
deliberate persistence in refusing to conform his pleadings to
the requirement of Rule 8 justified dismissal of the complaints
with prejudice." Id., at 439.
The instant case, however, does not involve a lawyer who has
deliberately persisted in violating Rule 8, but rather a pro se
plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit has held that complaints drafted
by pro se plaintiffs are held to "less stringent standards"
than those applied to complaints drafted by attorneys. Swofford
v. Mandrell, 969 F. 2d 547 (7th Cir. 1992). The documents
Zhan filed, while awkwardly drafted, are not so rambling or
confusing that Cook County is unaware of Zhan's claims or the
basis for them. This is all that Rule 8 requires. A complaint
need only "`give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"
Swierkiewicz ...