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.

Delores D. Ammons-Lewis v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

May 17, 2012

DELORES D. AMMONS-LEWIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, DEFENDANT.



Judge Feinerman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Delores Ammons-Lewis brought this suit against her employer, Defendant Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District has moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Ammon-Lewis's ADA failure to accommodate claim in its entirety and the other claims to the extent they allege conduct falling outside the governing statutes of limitations. The motion is granted.

Background

The complaint's well-pleaded facts, though not its legal conclusions, are assumed true on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 2010); Reger Dev., LLC v. Nat'l City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir. 2010). In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must consider "the complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint, documents that are critical to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial notice." Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012). The court also must consider additional facts included in the plaintiff's opposition brief, so long as those facts "are consistent with the pleadings." Ibid.; see also Smith v. Knox Cnty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1039 (7th Cir. 2012); Flying J Inc. v. City of New Haven, 549 F.3d 538, 542 n.1 (7th Cir. 2008). The following sets forth the facts as favorably to Ammons-Lewis as permitted by the complaint and the other materials that may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Ammons-Lewis was the first African-American female Operating Engineer employed by the District. Doc. 1 at ¶ 6. The District's Operating Engineers have different job titles, including "OE-1" and "OE-2." Id. at ¶ 9. Ammons-Lewis became an OE-2 at some point. Id. at ¶ 10. OE-2s must use the District's "Foxboro" main saver computer program to write work orders for failed equipment operations, and must have a computer password to use the program. Id. at ¶ 11. Ammons-Lewis started requesting a computer password in 1996, but the District did not give her one until September 2011. Id. at ¶ 12. The District provided computer passwords without hesitation to male OE-1s and OE-2s. Ibid.

The District gives employees private email accounts "for receiving current notifications of training, employee benefits, [and] copies of paycheck stubs." Id. at ¶ 11. Employees with such accounts can more easily communicate with the District's human resources department and have the ability to communicate from home with other District employees. Ibid. The District did not give Ammons-Lewis a private email account until September 2011. Id. at ¶ 12.

From 2001 through 2011, after experiencing disabling on-the-job injuries, AmmonsLewis was denied medical treatment and disability benefits. Id. at ¶ 13. The District denied Ammons Lewis vacation benefits she earned in 2003 and 2006-2011. Id. at ¶ 20. AmmonsLewis's requests for FMLA benefits in 2002, 2007, and 2010 were denied as well. Id. at ¶ 14.

The District refused to accommodate Ammons-Lewis's disabling health condition, and she was "defamed, racially slandered, subjected to a downgrade job rating, and impugned" because she was identified as a potential witness in an ADA lawsuit. Id. at ¶ 22.

Ammons-Lewis filed with the EEOC two charges of discrimination against the District. On the first charge, which was filed on January 18, 2008, Ammons-Lewis checked the box for discrimination based on retaliation, and set forth this narrative:

I was hired by Respondent on October 27, 1986. My current position is Operating Engineer. Throughout my employment, I have filed several EEOC and internal complaints of discrimination alleging disability and sex discrimination. I have been denied sick leave pay, denied vacation time, denied holiday pay, denied FMLA benefits and I have been denied the right to go through the accident report process.

I believe I have been retaliated against for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Doc. 1-2 at 3. Ammons-Lewis amended this charge on April 24, 2008. On the amended form, Ammons-Lewis checked the boxes for discrimination based on race, sex, and retaliation, and added this language to the narrative in the original charge: "I believe I have been discriminated against because of my race, Black, and my sex, female." Id. at 2.

On the second charge, which was filed on October 7, 2009, Ammons-Lewis checked the boxes for discrimination based on sex and retaliation, and set forth this narrative:

I was hired by the Respondent on or about October 27, 1986. My current position is Operating Engineer. Throughout my employment, I have filed internal and EEOC complaints, including but not limited to [the January 18, 2008 charge], alleging disability and sex discrimination. Subsequently, I have been denied essential training, and assigned ...


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.