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.

Hebah Al Naser v. Creative Designs Management

August 30, 2012

HEBAH AL NASER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CREATIVE DESIGNS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Hebah Al Naser ("Plaintiff" or "Al Naser") brings this suit against her former employer, Creative Designs Management Company. Al Naser also names as Defendants Creative Design Builders Company; CD Euro Imports, LTD; Washington Franklin, LLC; and Ibrabhim Shehada individually and doing business as the various entities of Marshal Partners, Beacon Leland, and Racine Waveland, and unknown related entities from A to Z (collectively with Creative Designs Management Company "Defendants"). Al Naser alleges that the Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of sex, national origin, and her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (Count I); discriminated against her upon discharge on the basis of sex, national origin, and her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII (Count II); created a hostile work environment on the basis of her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII (Count III); and operated as alter egos of one another and should therefore all be treated as her actual employer pursuant to Title VII (Count IV). Al Naser seeks to pierce the Defendants' corporate veils and to recover both compensatory and punitive damages for her alleged wrongs. The Defendants move to dismiss Al Naser's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against all Defendants other than Creative Designs Management Company, and request that Plaintiff amend her complaint as to Creative Designs Management Company only. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Court directs the Plaintiff to amend her Complaint against Creative Designs Management Company in an accordance with the direction provided by this Opinion.

I. Background

In considering this Motion to Dismiss, the well‐pleaded allegations in the Complaint are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are construed in favor of Al Naser, the nonmoving party. See Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank, 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006)).

In January 2010, Hebah Al Naser was hired by Defendant Ibrabhim Shehada to work at Creative Designs Management Company as a property manager. Creative Designs Management Company is an Illinois Corporation and, according to Al Naser, shares office space at 4355 N. Ravenswood, Chicago, Illinois with Defendants Creative Design Builders Company; CD Euro Imports, LTD; Washington Franklin, LLC; Marshal Partners, LLC; Beacon Leland, LLC; and Racine Waveland. Each Defendant employs at least 15 people.

Furthermore, Al Naser claims that the Defendants have such a unity of interests and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporations no longer exist. Al Naser claims that Defendant Shehada holds or has held an ownership interest in all of the named Defendant corporations, as well as related unknown entities A through Z. Al Naser maintains that at the 4355 N. Ravenswood office the employees for all of the Defendant companies are intermingled and not separated or deciphered from one another and that the employees of one Defendant corporation complete work for other Defendant corporations. Al Naser was paid by Creative Designs Management Company, but was also paid on occasion by Defendant Racine Waveland, which is not a corporation registered in Illinois.

Al Naser is a Christian female of Jordanian ancestry and Jordanian national origin. Al Naser alleges that during her employment, and up until the time she was terminated on August 22, 2011, the Defendants treated her less favorably than similarly situated Middle Eastern men and non‐Middle Eastern men and women. Specifically, Al Naser alleges that she was subjected to different terms of employment than her male co‐workers in being denied extra time for breaks. Additionally, Al Naser claims that Defendant Shehada made derogatory comments towards her because she is a Christian Jordanian woman.

On September 21, 2011, Al Naser filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter "EEOC") alleging that Creative Designs Management Company, and only Creative Designs Management Company, discriminated against her on the basis of sex, national origin, and religion. On December 19, 2011, Al Naser received a Right‐to‐Sue Letter from the EEOC. Al Naser timely filed her Complaint in this Court on March 19, 2012. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e‐5(f)(1) (an aggrieved plaintiff may bring a Title VII action in federal court within ninety days of receiving a right‐to‐sue letter from the EEOC); see also Reschny v. Elk Grove Planting Co., 414 F.3d 821, 823 (7th Cir. 2005) ("Title VII provides that the EEOC shall notify the person aggrieved of her right to sue, 'and [that] within ninety days after the giving of such notice, a civil action may be brought.') (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e‐5(f)(1)).

II. The Legal Standard of Review

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all the well‐plead facts alleged in the complaint and construes all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Killingsworth, 507 F.3d at 618 (citing Savory, 469 F.3d at 670); accord Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1995). To properly state a valid claim, the complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "Detailed factual allegations" are not required, but the plaintiff must allege facts that, when "accepted as true. . .state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal quotations omitted). To determine whether a complaint meets this standard the "reviewing court [must] draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. If the factual allegations are well‐plead, the Court assumes their veracity and then proceeds to determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 679. A claim has facial plausibility when its factual content allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Id. at 678.

III. Discussion

The Defendants move to dismiss Al Naser's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on three grounds. First, the Defendants contend that all of the named Defendants except for Creative Designs Management Company should be dismissed because they were not named in Al Naser's Charge of Discrimination filed with the EEOC. Second, the Defendants further argue that Defendant Shehada should also be dismissed because an individual cannot be held personally liable under Title VII. Finally, the Defendants maintain that Al Naser's Complaint does not plausibly establish alter ego liability on the part of the Defendants such that their individual corporate forms should be disregarded and should all be held to constitute Al Naser's employer for the purposes of imposing liability pursuant to Title VII.

A. EEOC Charge

Defendants first argue that, except for Creative Designs Management Company, all of the named Defendants should be dismissed from this suit because they were not named as parties in Al Naser's EEOC Charge of Discrimination. Consequentially, the Defendants maintain that they did not have notice that Al Naser intended to file a claim against them as required by Title VII, and thus were not afforded notice of their alleged ...


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.