Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doyle v. McClean County Health Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 10, 2006

DORA L. DOYLE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MCCLEAN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

ORDER

On February 22, 2006, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.

The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation alleging that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her race when she was not hired for a position with the Health Department. The Court concurs with the recommendation that Defendant's claim that the Complaint was untimely filed is without merit. The Court also agrees that it is well-established that a plaintiff need not meet a heightened standard of pleading in order to survive a motion to dismiss in a Title VII case; Plaintiff's allegations that she was not hired for the job because she is African American and that a less qualified non-African American candidate was hired are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of notice pleading. Finally, when construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and all reasonable inferences are drawn in her favor, the Court cannot conclude the there is no set of facts consistent with the Complaint that could entitle her to relief on her claim of unfair hiring practices.

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#15] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#8] is DENIED, and this matter is again REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Cudmore for further proceedings.

ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2006.

20060310

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.