United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Aubrey J. Prince, Plaintiff,
State of Illinois Department of Revenue, Defendant
Aubrey J. Prince, Plaintiff, Pro se, Chicago, IL.
For State of Illinois Department of Revenue, Defendant: David Michael Friebus, LEAD ATTORNEY, Illinois Attorney General's Office (100 W), Chicago, IL.
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 2, 2010:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Status hearing reset for 8/16/2010 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice(tsa, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
Plaintiff Aubrey J. Prince (" Prince" ) filed this employment discrimination suit against his employer, the Illinois Department of Revenue (" IDR" ). Prince alleges discrimination on the basis of his disability and retaliation, both in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. IDR has moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Prince has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because Prince has not alleged that he is " disabled" under the ADA and has not shown a causal link between any statutorily protected activity and any adverse employment action. For the reasons set forth below, IDR's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Prince initially filed a form complaint with limited factual elaboration, explaining only that he had " complained of discrimination" and was then " informed that (he) had been suspended," in retaliation for these complaints. (R. 1 at 10.) After IDR filed its Motion to Dismiss, Prince filed a Response further detailing the factual basis for his claims. ( See R. 21.) The Court construes this filing as a Motion for leave to file an amended complaint. See Korsunskiy v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 847, 850 (7th Cir. 2006) (" If the judge can see what the pro se litigant is driving at, that is enough." ). Such leave should be freely given " when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The Court therefore grants the implied Motion for leave to amend, and deems the attachment to Prince's Response together with Prince's original Complaint to constitute Prince's Amended Complaint.
Statement of Facts
The following facts are taken from Prince's Response to IDR's Motion to Dismiss (deemed part of his Amended Complaint) and are assumed to be true for purposes of deciding the Motion to Dismiss. See Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1995). As Prince is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are construed liberally. See Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845-846 (7th Cir. 1999). Prince is a Revenue Auditor at IDR. (R. 21 at 7, P B). He began working for IDR on or around September 1, 1999, and began requesting disability-related accommodations in 2000. ( Id. P E). Prince has diabetes, heart disease, and has had both hips replaced. ( Id. P C). He claims that he made IDR aware of these ailments throughout his employment, and after each of several medical leaves of absence he returned to work with doctor-signed ADA accommodation requests. ( Id. P D). His requested accommodations included asking for a lighter computer, a lighter computer case, and limited travel. ( Id. P E).
IDR did not accommodate Prince to the extent that he had requested, and in 2005 Prince began complaining to IDR management about disability discrimination. ( Id. P G). In what Prince claims were a series of retaliatory actions as a result of these complaints, Prince alleges that IDR denied him promotions and pay-step increases, that his work was scrutinized more than his co-workers, and that he was " written up" or disciplined. ( Id. P H). On February 8, 2009, Prince filed a charge of discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (" IDHR" ) and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC" ). On March 9, 2009, Prince was informed that he had been suspended. ( Id. at 11, P1). On March 30, 2009, Prince filed a second charge with IDHR and EEOC that included a reference to his suspension. ( Id. ).
Prince received, and attached to his original Complaint, two Dismissals and Notices of Rights from the EEOC dated May 6 and June 22, 2009. The notices were first sent to him via certified mail and went unclaimed, but were re-sent via regular mail on August 19 and August 21, 2009. (See R. 21 at 10 & 13). Prince then filed this action on ...