Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge James F. Holderman than Assigned Judge
For the reasons set forth in the Statement section, Defendant City of Chicago's "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in Part and Stay Discovery,"  is granted. Count I is dismissed in its entirety, as are any allegations in Count II premised on Defendant's alleged failure to promote Plaintiff. The city is to file its answer, by Feb. 1, 2012, to Mazur's retaliatory discipline claim in Count II of his Complaint. Counsel are to confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) and jointly file a Form 52 on or before Feb. 15, 2012. The case is set for status and entry of a scheduling order at 9:00 AM on Feb. 22, 2012.
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Before the court is Defendant City of Chicago's "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in Part and Stay Discovery." (Dkt. No. 12 (Def.'s Mot.).) For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
On Aug. 15, 2011, Plaintiff Paul Mazur ("Mazur"), an assistant chief engineer for the City of Chicago, filed suit against the city seeking to recover for national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. (Dkt. No. 1 (Pl.'s Compl.).)
Mazur's complaint of national origin discrimination in Count I is based on the city's alleged failure to promote him to the position of chief engineer. Mazur has been employed by the city since March 1982. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 11.) He is of Polish descendent, and contends that his supervisor, Mark O'Malley, treated Irish employees more favorably than he treated Mazur. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 12--13.) Specifically, Mazur contends that he has applied for four chief engineer positions with the city in the last two years, but was not promoted. (Id. ¶ 14.) Instead, the positions went to people of Irish descent, one of whom is related to O'Malley. (Id.) O'Malley conducted the interviews for the chief engineer positions. (Id.) Mazur contends he was passed over even though he had 30 years of service with the city and had scored 90 percent on the first part of the test for chief engineer. (Id. ¶ 15). He alleges that the city hired less qualified candidates because they were of Irish descent, even though he was meeting the city's legitimate expectations. (Id. ¶¶16--17.)
In Count II, Mazur alleges that the city retaliated against him for complaining about national origin discrimination. Attached to the Complaint is Plaintiff's EEOC charge, dated May 5, 2011, in which he wrote, in relevant part:
I previously filed EEOC Charge #440-2010-01080. During my employment, I was subjected to discipline and forced to attend a disciplinary hearing for pretextual reasons. I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my National Origin, Polish, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
(Id. at Ex. A (hereinafter, "May 2011 charge.") Mazur alleges that on several occasions, he complained to his supervisors, O'Malley and Tom Special, that he believed he was not being promoted because of his complaints that employees of Irish descent were being treated more favorably. (Id. ¶ 29.) Mazur alleges that as result of those complaints, he was passed over for the position of chief engineer. (Id. ¶ 30.) He also alleges that he received disciplinary write-ups as a result of his complaints of discrimination. (Id. ¶ 31). Specifically, on April 13, 2011, he was subjected to a "pre-disciplinary meeting" for an incident that occurred nearly four months earlier. (Id.)
The city contends that any claim that Mazur was denied a promotion because of his national origin or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity is outside the scope of the May 2011 EEOC charge, and thus barred. (Def.'s Mot. 1.) The court agrees.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, "to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949--50 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Although a complaint's factual allegations need not be detailed, they must provide more than "labels, conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action, and allege enough to raise a right to relief ...