United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
March 11, 2011
DU PAGE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONER
Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Elaine E. Bucklo Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Defendant's motion (15) to dismiss is granted. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Status hearing set for 3/23/11 is now vacated.
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against in his employment on the basis of his age; his sex; his color; his disability; his national origin; his race; and his sex. He has not, however, alleged his age; his color; his disability; his national origin; his race; or his sex, nor has he alleged sufficient facts from which to infer reasonably that he was defendant's employee. Further, plaintiff alleges that he filed a discrimination claim before the EEOC and the Illinois Department of Human Rights and that he received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, but he has neither attached a copy of his claims, nor specified the date on which they were made, nor has he provided a copy of any right to sue letter.
The filing of a timely charge before the EEOC, and the receipt of a "right to sue" letter is a statutory prerequisite to filing any claim under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Swearnigen-El v. Cook County Sheriff's Dept., 602 F.3d 852, 864 (7th Cir. 2010)(Title VII); Miller v. American Airlines, Inc., 525 F.3d 520, 525 (7th Cir. 2008) (ADEA); Green v. National Steel Corp., Midwest Division, 197 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 1999) (ADA). Because I cannot reasonably infer from the facts asserted in the complaint either that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, or that the statutory prerequisites to suit were met, I dismiss his statutory claims.
Plaintiff's Equal Protection claim also fails. As noted above, plaintiff has not pled membership in a protected class. Moreover, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factual material to support a constitutional claim against a local government entity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. To state such a claim, plaintiff must allege that the local governmental entity had an express policy that, when enforced, caused a constitutional deprivation; or had a widespread practice that was so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage within the force of law; or that plaintiff's asserted constitutional injury was caused by a person with final policymaking authority. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 324 (7th Cir. 2000).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.