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.

Balyasnikova v. University of Illinois at Chicago

September 7, 2007

IRINA BALYASNIKOVA, PLAINTIFF
v.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wayne R. Andersen District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Irina Balyasnikova filed a three-count amended complaint against her former employer,University of Illinois at Chicago ("UIC") and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, alleging gender discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 26 et seq., and breach of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), specifically 29 U.S.C. § 207. Defendant now moves to dismiss Count III of plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Balyasnikova's well-pleaded allegations, which the court treats as true and views in a light most favorable to the plaintiff for purposes of this motion, are as follows. Balyasnikova obtained her masters degree in animal and human physiology and her PhD in cell biology in Russia. Defendant is an educational institution that maintains and operates a public university in Chicago, Illinois. In February, 1997, defendant hired Balyasnikova as a post-doctoral research associate in UIC's department of anesthesiology. From 2000 to 2003, Balyasnikova was employed as an instructor, and from 2003 to May 15, 2007, Balyasnikova was employed as a research assistant professor.

During the course of her work as a research assistant, Balyasnikova performed experiments for about 60 hours per week, and also assisted in writing academic articles. As an instructor, Balyasnikova performed the same experiments and was also required to write and assist in writing academic articles, totaling about 80 to 90 hours per week. In her final position as research assistant professor, Balyasnikova worked 60 to 70 hours per week performing experiments in addition to 20 to 40hours per week on grants and publications.

Balyasnikova alleges that she worked more hours than her male colleagues and that she was also paid less for performing the same work. Balyasnikova further alleges that she was required to work additional hours that her male colleagues were not required to work, and that she was passed over for a promotion to the position of research associate professor that was given to a male colleague. Additionally, Balyasnikova claims that male colleagues were credited with work that they never performed on her publications, and that her employer made unauthorized changes to grants she had secured from the American Heart Association and American Lung Association in order to compensate her male colleagues.

To support her FLSA claim, Balyasnikova asserts that she worked more than 40 hours per week and that the defendant did not compensate her for these extra hours as required by the FLSA. Balyasnikova filed her initial complaint on January 17, 2007. On May 15, 2007, Balyasnikova filed the instant amended complaint changing Count III from a claim for breach of contract to a claim for breach of the FLSA.

DISCUSSION

A motion to dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) does not test whether the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, but instead whether the claimant has properly stated a claim. Schuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). The court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Chaney v. Suburban Bus Div. of Regional Transp. Auth., 52 F.3d 623, 626-27 (7th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). "Dismissal is properly granted if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Cushing v. City of Chicago, 3 F.3d 1156, 1159 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Hishon v. King and Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)).

In Count III of the amended complaint, Balyasnikova seeks to recover under the FLSA for overtime wages. Balyasnikova alleges that during her employment with the defendant, she worked in excess of 40 hours per week and was not compensated for these hours.

Under the FLSA, no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce . . . for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.

29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

However, the FLSA also provides an exemption to this rule for employees "employed in a bona fide, executive, administrative, or professional capacity." 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). While the FLSA does not define this term, the Secretary of Labor has issued regulations to include "learned professionals" as exempt from this requirement. 29 C.F.R. § 541.301.

The regulations set out a three stage test to determine whether an employee is a learned professional for the purpose of the exemption. "[A]n employee's primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by prolonged course of ...


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.